Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP167
(On pre-liminary issues Nos. 8 (a) & (b). 9. 10. 11. 14 & 15).1. Issue Nos. 8 (a) and 8 (b) :--Shri Thakur the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the respondent No. 7 is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the decision of this election petition and thus his name is struck off from the array of the respondents the allegation made in paragraph 12 of the petition and the particulars supplied in annexure 7 are not now necessary, and paragraph No. 12 of the petition may be permitted to be struck off. Counsel for the other parties have also raised no objection to this submission, and the result is that paragraph No. 12 of the petition is ordered to be struck off. With this view, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the allegation made in this paragraph suffers from lack of material particulars. As a consequence, it is now unnecessary to keep the issue for proof and it is also therefore, struck off.2. II. Issue No. 9:-- Shri Dharmadhikari the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP340; 1991(0)MPLJ217
S.K. Dubey, J.1. The legal representatives of the purchaser/defendant No. 1 in the suit, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1976, on 9-3-1978, by District Judge, Morena, whereby the suit of the plaintiff, a lunatic, has been decree reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sabalgarh, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1970, decided on 31-1-1976.2. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 22-2-1980 for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether by applying the principle of 'feeding the estoppel' as contemplated by Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for joint possession in as much as the defendant/ purchaser could claim at least the ownership of the undivided interest of Dropadi?'At the time of final hearing an application was filed by the appellants on 4-10-1990 under Section 100(5), Civil Procedure Code, for grant of leave to ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ140
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th February, 1978 rendered by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Jhabua in COD No. 1-D of 77, thereby dismissing the Appellant's suit on the ground of untenability in view of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that parties had faced some dispute as regards monetary liability. They, therefore, referred that dispute to the Panchas in 1974 without intervention of the Court, The panchas passed Award on 27-9-1974. On the basis of that Award, the appellant was held entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the respondents. The parties, on being read over, accepted this award and declared the intention to act according to it. In pursuance of this, the respondent No. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant on 31-10-1974 through panch Bab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP51; 1962MPLJ1102
A.H. Khan, J. 1. This is plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, in case No. 4 of 1952, Original Civil, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for the recovery of Rs. 13527-11-6.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of a firm known as Firm Seth Tiparchand Hiralal, while the defendants are owners of another Firm, known as Firm Thakurdas Gopilal.3. The plaintiff's case is that the owners of the defendant-firm on 11-3-34, after going through the accounts of the plaintiff-firm admitted a sum. of Rs. 12491/- due to the plaintiffs and in acknowledgment of the debt signed an entry in the plaintiff's Bahi-Khata. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 3697-10-9 has been realised, and, the present suit is for the recovery of the balance (Rs. 8793-5-3) and interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum.4. The defendants admitted signing the Bahi-Khata. But the main ground on which they resisted the suit was that subsequent to the signing of the Bahi-Khata, an agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ961
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This first appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ECode') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1988 rendered by Vlth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in COS No. 89-A/86 thereby passing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act') together with mesne profits @Rs. 115/- per months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit-house No. 30, Bada Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the Joint Family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Guljarilal. On partition by a registered partition deed dated 25-2-1953, this suit house fell to the share of Guljarilal. The respondents are the sons of late Guljarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. The respondents came with a case that the appellant occupied the first-floor and one room on the ground-floor as the licensee of the respondents. This licence was terminated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ834
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. This reference is made by one of us (S. K. . Dubey, J.) while hearing third bail application of the accused/applicant, arrested in connection with an offence under Section 8/18, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the 'Act', or NDPS Act. After hearing counsel, we framed following two questions which arise for our consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case :1. If for offence under Section 18, NDPS Act, charge-sheet is filed 90 days after the arrest of the accused, whether the latter will, as of right, be entitled to get bail from High Court?2. Under what circumstances, the High Court or the 'Special Court' can grant bail under Section 37, NDPS Act, to a person accused of an offence under Section 18 of the said Act if plea is raised by the accused in terms of Section 50 of the said Act?2. On 8-8-1991, the accused was apprehended while travelling in a bus with an attache case, on Agra-Bombay Road, near Shivpuri. From his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ229
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition by a Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army challenging the proceedings of Court-Martial initiated against him. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14th December, 1958 as a Second Lieutenant. Gradually he rose to his present substantive rank of Brigadier. From Feb., 1988 to April 1989, he was posted at Agra as Commandant Para Regimental Centre. In April, 1989 he was given acting rank of Major General and was posted as General Officer Commanding Vth Mountain Division in Eastern Command.2. In July, 1989 the petitioner was called to Agra as a witness in Court Martial proceedings going on against one Major Mahapatra. He reported for this purpose on 13-7-1989 at Agra. After the petitioner left Agra in April 1989, Brig. Lognathan took charge as Commandant Para Regimental Centre at Agra. He reported certain financial irregularities and a Court of Enquiry was instituted to enquire into the financial irregularities in the Para Regiment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)MPLJ410
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Felling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, directing the eviction of the tenant-applicant from the accommodation in dispute within two months subject to the payment of Rs. 7,800/- towards payment of rent for a period of two years, he has now approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction Under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, seeking redress praying for reversal of the impugned order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenant-applicant and the learned counsel representing the landlady-respondent and have also carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. An application Under Section 23-A (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed by the landlady-respondent on 25-3-1995 praying for recovery of the possession on eviction of the tenant-applicant from the accommodation in dispute which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)MPLJ175
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. 'An Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes', is the preamble of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Supreme Court in the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras : [1960]3SCR887 has observed that the preamble is a key to the enactment and it may legitimately be construed to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one, or to keep the effect of the statute within its real scope, whenever the enacting part is in any of these respects open to doubt. The scope of the Act is a progressive piece of legislation and design to settle the disputes on a new pattern hitherto intention to judicial machinery set in the country. The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be adversely affected. The landmark two decisions of the Supreme Court on this po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP5; 1970MPLJ1
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. 2. On April 26, 1963, at about 4 p. m., Rajendra Kumar, a boy of 7 years, was sitting on the pathway a few yards away from the highway, on the outskirts of village Jamli, where he lived with his father, Parasram (respondent No. 1). The boy was answering the call of nature. In the meantime, a passenger bus, M. P. E. 3564, belonging to Mangilal (appellant) and driven by Kale Khan (respondent No. 2) came on the wrong side of the road and ran over the boy causing severe injuries to him, which resulted in his instantaneous death. 3. Parasram lodged a claim for Rupees 20,000/- before the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Act against Mangilal, Kale Khan and the Indian Merchantile Insurance Co. Ltd., (respondent No. 3, hereinafter called the insurer) on the allegation that the bus was driven at a ...
Tag this Judgment!