Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990MPLJ412
T.N. Singh, J.1. On admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.2. In the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendant's eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed.2-A. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10 of 1982 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19-6-82 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.2. Objection is raised by the respondents as to maintainability. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4-9-96 [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 255]. After its decision an application for restoration was filed as some of the respondents were not served and appeal came up for hearing. After restoration of appeal the case was listed again and objection is raised that in view of amendment in Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is filed against that order.3. It is to be examined whether the appeal is now maintainable in view of amended Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2002. Section 100A is reproduced below:--'100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-- Notwithstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR1180]; (2006)IILLJ1027MP; 2006(1)MPHT551; 2006(2)MPLJ289
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notification dated 10-10-2005 issued by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 as well as the vires of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are that under Entry 22 of List III to the Second Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, both Parliament and State Legislature have concurrent power to make law relating to trade union and industrial and labour disputes. In exercise of such powers, the State Legislature has enacted the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') with the assent, of the President of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act provides that Section 1 and Section 112 of the Act shall come into force at once and the State Government may, by notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP35; 1974MPLJ27
Tare, C.J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 680 of 1973 -- (S. Awatarsingh v. The Authorised Officer. Jabalpur, The said writ petition has been filed by Sardar Awatarsingh, who is respondentNo. 5 in Misc. Petition No. 617 of 1973. As the facts in both the cases are common, it is convenient to dispose of both the cases by a common order.2. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the widow and the daughter of one. Harbanslal brother of the fifth respondent, S. Awatarsingh. The petitioners challenge the order of the Authorised Officer, dated. 4-8-1973 (Petitioners' Annexure-C), directing the first petitioner to vacate the premises and allotting the premises to the third respondent, namely. J. C. Johari, Dy. Superintendent of Police.3. The fourth respondent. Sushil kumar is the landlord. His father. Labbooram Sharma had created the late Harbanslal as a tenant many years before and the fifth respondent. S. Awatarsingh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP63
ORDERNewaskar, J. 1. Only question raised in this revision petition is whether the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act repeals Jhabua State Agriculturists Relief Act? 2. The trial Court held that the Madhya Bharat Act aforesaid does not repeal the Jhabua Act. The learned trial Judge took into consideration two circumstances. Firstly, it is said, that in the repealing clause in the Madhya Bharat Act there is direct reference to Money Lenders Act Gwalior State, Samvat 2003, Indore Money Lenders Act, No. V of 1938 and Sahukari Sambandhi Vidhan Dewas Junior, 1943, but no direct reference to the aforesaid Jhabua Act and secondly it is said that the preamble of the Madhya Bharat Act indicates that the Act was designed to control and regulate the transactions of money lending in Madhya Bharat whereas the preamble to the Jhabua Act indicates that it was designed to prevent money-lenders from taking undue advantage of the illiterate and ignorant condition of the agricultural, class and that as ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP130; 1968MPLJ251
Bhave, J. 1. Smt. Thakurain Dulaiya, the plaintiff-appellant, is the owner ofHouse No. 828, Lordganj, Jabalpur, and the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) is the tenant thereof at the monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for ejectment on various grounds including the ground that the defendant No. 1 had sub-let part of the premises to the defendants 2 and 3 and that the subletting being unlawful she was entitled to eject the defendants under Section 12(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant No. 3 vacated the premises during the pendency of the suit. The defence of the defendants 1 and 2 was that the part of the premises was sublet to the defendant No. 2 at a tripartite contract between the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, arrived at between the parties at Mauranipur in April 1955. It was not disputed that the contract was oral; but the submission was that it being a tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
R.P.No.541/2011 Shri Jagat Guru Shankarachariya Sameer Electronics Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Mahara12. 10.2012 Ms.Neelam Goel, counsel for petitioner. Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for respondent. This review petition is filed against an order dated 6.4.2010, in Civil Revision No.249/2008, by which a revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, though the second alternate contention of the petitioner was accepted and cost imposed by the appellate Court was enhanced to further Rs.2,000/-. As the Judge who had passed the order is not available, this matter is placed before the Division Bench as per Rule 5 of Order XLVII C.P.C.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without considering the moot question involved in the case that there was no sufficient cause for absence of respondent, on the date on which the case was proceeded exparte, the revision petition was disposed of and cost was enhanced. It was also submitted by Ms.Goel that she had never prayed before the Single Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ1031
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant-defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-12-1986, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 59-A of 1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, a Camp Janjgir, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1983, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 82-A of 1980, by the Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir, has preferred this second appeal against the order of his eviction on the ground of Section 12(l)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, pleading that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on monthly rental of Rs. 170/-. The defendant did not pay rent for the period between June, 1977 to May 1978 and, as such, was in arrears. On 19-6-1978, notice of demand was given to the defendant but despite that he did not deposit rent with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was called upon to file civil suit No. 73-A of 1978, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP120
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Sheojee Bhai for ejectment of the two defendants from a building used as a cinema house, and for mesne profits.2. The case had a chequered career which will be shortly stated. But at present the main question for consideration in this appeal is about the rate at which the plaintiff is entitled to set mesne profits from the date when the lease came to an end up to the date of delivery of possession. There are certain other minor points also which will be dealt with at the proper place.3. On 18th August 1951 the plaintiff Sheojee Bhai executed a registered lease of the premises, including the electric fittings and furniture, in favour of the defendants Shyamacharan and D. B. Jadav for ten years at the rate of Rupees 1,600/- per month. This lease was to start from 22nd May 1950 and was to end on 21st May 1960. On 22nd May 1960 the plaintiff demanded possession by a telegraphic n...
Tag this Judgment!