Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1958 Page 2 of about 19 results (0.046 seconds)

May 06 1958 (HC)

Chakrapani Jagannath Prasad Vs. Chandoo Sahadeo and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-06-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP397

..... deposition to show that he came across chandoo canvassing in any area or saw him canvassing between the 22nd february and the 4th march. his interest in the issue is patent enough, and in view of this we do not think that he can be relied upon.31. surya prasad (p. w. 5), the next witness, is even more vitally interested .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1958 (HC)

Bhojraj Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-23-1958

Reported in : AIR1958MP286

..... by the provincial government in this behalf' qualify not only civiljudge, but also district judge and additional district judge. the case decided by eao, j, was reversed in a letters patent appeal reported in dr, g. v. pandit v. dr. p. v. deshmukh, ilr (1952) nag 352: (air 1952 nag 283) (b), but not on this point. in madan lal v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1958 (HC)

Sheoramprasad Ram Narayanlal Bania Vs. Gopalprasad Parmeshwardayal Shu ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-14-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP102

..... . this does not mean, as was contended, that defendant 1 was denied all share of the profits and properties of the partnership. the award, therefore, is not shown to be patently partial to the plaintiff and cannot be assailed on that ground. 28. the result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1958 (HC)

Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje ScIndia Vs. Motilal Jugal Kishore

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-07-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP109

..... is only if the section be considered as mandatory that the election of the appellant can be declared void under section 100 of the act, because, if directory, there is patently a substantial compliance with it. 16. here we come to another branch of the argument as to whether a breach of section 37 by the candidate, whose notice of withdrawal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1958 (HC)

Gauri Shankar Vs. Firm Dulichand Laxmi Narayan

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP188

..... appeal under section 47 of the civil procedure code and shall dispose it of accordingly, so that the party aggrieved would have a right of appeal, under clause 10 of the letters patent, as a matter of right, on the authority of madhukar trimbaklal v. sati godawari upasani maharaj, ilr (1940) nag 141: (air 1940 nag 39) (fb).there is authority for this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1958 (HC)

Shriniwas Vs. Rukmini Raman Pratap Singh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1958MP243

..... we have quoted above. 11. a large number of authorities was cited before us, mainly from the election tribunal cases, to which we need not refer here. it is, quite patent that the facts of one election petition are not always the facts of another election petition, and even in the same kind of election petitions there may be shades and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1958 (HC)

Nathanlal Vs. State Industrial Court and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-25-1958

Reported in : (1960)ILLJ786MP

k.l. pandey, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal directed against the order of bhatt, j., dated 8 october 1957, by which the appellant's petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution was dismissed.2. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1958 (HC)

Masalkhan S/O Kalandar Khan Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-13-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP256

p.k. tare, j. 1. this appeal is directed against the order of naik j. dated 20-7-1956 passed in miscellaneous petition no. 224 of 1956, refusing to issue a writ of certiorari under article 226 of the constitution of india against the orders of the authorities acting tinder the administration of evacuee property act (xxxi of 1950).2. this case has had a chequered history. the facts as established from the record are as follows :one abdul gafoor khan, a fruit merchant of bilaspur in madhya pradesh, went to village pir piyai (west pakistan) in september, 1948 along with his wife, children and his parents. on 15-1-1949, abdul gafoor applied from village pir piyai for permission to come to india. a non-objection certificate dated 1-2-1949 was issued granting him the necessary permission. he returned to india on the said permit and again applied on 2-8-1949 for a permit to visit pir piyai. a temporary permit dated 26-8-1949 was granted to him, which was valid upto 25-8-1950. he overstayed there and after the expiry of the period of the permit applied to the union government for permission to return to india. but by an order dated 24-7-1951, he was refused permission. there is nothing on record to indicate that he made any subsequent attempts to return to india.3. in the year 1952, proceedings were started for declaring ashraf khan, father of abdul cafoor khan, an evacuee vide evacuee property case no.16-33/7 of 1951-52. in the course of the proceedings not only ashraf khan, but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1958 (HC)

Vishnu Ganesh Namjoshi Vs. Laxminarayan

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-23-1958

Reported in : AIR1959MP293

v.r. newasker, j.1. this second appeal arises out of plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:3. plaintiff vishnu ganesh namjoshi sued defendant laxminarain on the allegations that the latter had taken shop premises consisting of two rooms in his house abutting on jail road, indore at rs. 75/- p. m. from 20-4-1949 but that he fell is arrears and failed to pay the same in spite of notice as required by law and that on that account his tenancy was terminated by means of a lawful notice to quit.4. the defendant by his written statement contended that he had deposited with the plaintiff rs. 225/- being the rent for three months in advance; that although the contractual rent was rs. 75/-per month, the fair rent was determined at his instance by the rent controller at rs. 22/8/- pet month; that on receipt of plaintiff's notice dated 15-10-1953 he sent to the plaintiff the amount to cover up entire arrears after taking into account the aforesaid deposit amount of rs. 225/- minus rs. 67/8; as the advance rent for three months at rs. 22/8/; that later on receipt of a second notice dated 5-12-1953 he sent rs. 45/- by money order as two months rent upto 18-1-1954 which the plaintiff refused and that the notice to quit was not lawful.5. the trial court held that the defendant had failed to pay the arrears in spite of notice of demand and that there was lawful termination of his tenancy by means of a valid notice to quit. he .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //