Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-23-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP39
M. Hidayatullah, C. J.1. This appeal is by Gourishankar Sastri, a returned candidate to the general seat from the Charghoda double member Legislative Assembly constituency in tho Raigarh district, whose election has been set aside by an order of the Election Tribunal Raigarh, passed on 8-1-1958 in Election Petition No. 194 of 1957.2. Seven persons contested the election for the two seats. The second respondent Raja Lalit Kumar Singh was declared elected to the reserved seat. His election is no longer in dispute and no argument at the hearing was advanced against him. The appellant Gourishankar Shastri was elected to the general seat. The results of the election were declared on 9-3-1957 and the Gazette notification was issued on 1-4-1957. Though as many as 62 issues were framed in the case, the decision of the Tribunal rests upon issues nos l(a) and (b).The contention of Mayadhardas, the election petitioner, was that the nomination paper of Gourishankar Shastri was wrongly accepted ina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP187
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. The respondent Kishanlal had filed an application against the appellant Rukmanibai for divorce under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of District Judge Indore. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant Rukmanibai filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and necessary expenses of the proceedings. This application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Indore, on 29-8-1957 on the ground that the advantage of Section 24 of the Act is available only to a petitioner in the main proceedings. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Pande for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. He contends that under Section 28 of the Act, an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 24 is not tenable inasmuch as an appeal lies according to his interpretation of the section, against only those orders wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-24-1958
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-25-1958
Reported in : AIR1960MP5
ORDERV.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This is a petition for revision submitted by the petitioner Gopikishan Munnalal who was a witness in Civil Suit No. 505 of 1954 of the Civil Judge's Court at Mhow. The petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court for recovery of the amount of his personal bond given by him for his appearance on 24-9-1957.2. Facts material for the consideration of the legality and propriety of the order are as follows:Petitioner is a Railway servant and was cited as a witness by the defendant Ramnarayan and summons was issued on his home address in Rajagali Mhow for appearance on 20-8-1957. The summons was served but the witness failed to attend. No diet charges however were tendered to the witness as required under Order 16 Rule 3 C. P. C. The Court, therefore, in ignorance of the fact that he was a Railway Servant directed issue of Muchalka-warrant for appearance on 24-9-1957. The petitioner gave a personal bond in pursuance of the warrant and actually app...
Tag this Judgment!