Madhya Pradesh Court October 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raigarh Jute and Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. New Haryana Transport Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ626
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The trial Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court at Calcutta, exercising the powers under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and aggrieved by this order the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present appeal.2. The suit, as it is filed, is for recovery of Rs. 39,040/- and the allegation is that on 25-12-1982 16 25-12-1982 16 bales of gunny bags were given to the respondent/defendant for transportation in his truck from Raigarh to Raipur; the goods so consigned to the respondent were not delivered to the appellant/plaintiff in spite of notice and the goods are said to have been retained by the respondent/defendant and, therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the value of the goods so assigned to the defendant/respondent.3. The respondent filed its written statement, amongst other defences raised, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court at Raigarh to try the suit was taken by the defendant on the ground that on the top of...
Raigarh Judge and Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. New Haryana Transport Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC252
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The Trial Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court at Calcutta, exercising the powers under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and aggrieved by this order the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present appeal.2. The suit, as it is filed, is for recovery of Rs. 39,040/- and the allegation is that on 25.12.82, 16 bales of gunny bags were given to the respondent/defendant for transportation in his truck from Raigarh to Raipur; the goods so consigned to the respondent were not delivered to the appellant/plaintiff inspite of notice and the goods are said to have been retained by the respondent/defendant and, therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the value of the goods so assigned to the defendant/respondent.3. The respondent filed its written statement, amongst other defences raised, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court at Raigarh to try the suit was taken by the defendant on the ground that on the top of the consignment...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Sadhna
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC55
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1.This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 20-7-90 passed by District Judge, Damoh in Civil Suit No, 25-A786 dismissing the appellant's suit for divorce under Section 13 of the said Act.2. There is no dispute (hat the parties were married on 16-6-82 in accordance with Hindu rites at village Jabara. It also appears to be admitted that the parties are living separately from each other since 1983. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that after marriage the respondent came to live with him for 3-4 days only during which she behaved in a manner as to create an impression (bat she was menially ill. She was treated by a doctor at Damob who advised the respondent to be taken to Jabalpur. The appellant submitted that he had taken the respondent to Jabalpur for treatment and thereafter her parents had left her at his place at Singrampur. Thereafter she remained normal for one day but thereafter started shout...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Rameshchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ619
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The tenant/defendant has filed the second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the two courts below directing his ejectment from the suit premises on the grounds available to the plaintiff/landlords under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, 'the Act', for short). The two courts below have found the tenant to be defaulter, also guilty of committing an act injurious to the interests of the landlords by denying the latter's title in the suit property.2. There has been an earlier round of litigation between the parties. The tenant/appellant had committed default in payment of rent. Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears was decreed by the two courts below. The tenant filed a second appeal registered as S.A. No. 182/1974, which was disposed of by this Court on 23-4-1980. The tenant was held to be a tenant in the suit premises. However, the suit for ejectment based solely on ...
Sushil Madan Bairagi Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP128
S.K. Chawla, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annex. P-9), granting a stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra.2. The petitioner Sushil Bairagi as also respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra are bus operators. The latter had made an application, in addition to applications by some others for grant of a stage carriage permit overroute Antri to Neemach. R. T. A. Ujjain by order dated 10-4-92 (Annex. P-3) had granted that permit to one Prabhulal Patidar, rejecting the applications of others, including that of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 carried an appeal to State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short S.T.A.T.). The S.T.A.T. by the order dated 23-7-1992 (Annex. P-9) held the said appeal to be not maintainable against grant in favour of Prabhulal Patidar. The appeal was however partly allowed by that order by granting a stage carriage permit also to resp...
Jagdish S/O Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP132; 1993(0)MPLJ425
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The plaintiff/appellant has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, dismissing his suit for declaration of title, in reversal of the decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit.2. Vide order dated 25-8-1982, this appeal was admitted for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law:'Whether, the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the title of the present appellant in face of the compromise decree Ex.P-4 between the respondent No. 3 (the holder before the Competent Authority) and the present appellant (the objector before the Competent Authority) even though it is a compromise decree and State was not a party to the case?'3. The undisputed facts are that the defendant/respondent No. 3 was the holder of an agricultural holding. Proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Celling Act', for short) were initiated a...
Bhagwandas Goyal Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ998
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. On 11-7-1984 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following two substantial questions of law : -'(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a notice under Section 67 of M. P. Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1972 is attracted and if so, whether the notice Ex.P/6 is invalid?(2) Whether the period of two months of the notice Ex.P/6 having expired during the pendency, of the suit; the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable inasmuch as it was instituted prior to the expiry of two month's notice period under Section 67 of the aforesaid Act.'2. On 2-9-1980 the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,818.96 P. against the defendant/respondent alleging that in spite of having completed the work contract the amount of security deposit, earnest money and final bill were not paid to the plaintiff. Prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiff had served a notice under Section 67 of the M. P. Krishi...
Ravindra Bahadur Singh S/O Raja Birendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ512
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is the son of late Rani Padmavati Devi and claims interest in lands and building of Khasra No. 11, Telibandha, Raipur owned by her. He feels aggrieved by the order dated 20th September 1988 (Annexure-D) of the respondent State granting permission to the respondent No. 2 to sell the said land and challenges its legality and validity by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. There is no dispute between the parties that the lands and building under dispute were owned by late Rani Padmawati Devi who died intestate at Bhopal on 12th April 19871eavingbehindherhusbandRajaBirendraBahadur Singh, her two sons, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and two daughters. There is also no dispute between the parties that the lands in dispute were covered by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) and that 4738 sq. metres thereof was liable to vest in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›