SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(MP) 4

H.G.MISHRA, SHIV DAYAL, K.K.DUBE, R.K.TANKHA, M.L.MALIK, J.P.BAJPAI, NEVASKAR
SHARADCHAND – Appellant
Versus
VISHNUPANT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.TARE, D.R.DHARMADHIKARI, KANTI RAO, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI

SHIV DAYAL, C. J.

( 1 ) WHEN this second appeal was placed before a learned single Judge for admission, he passed the following order:-" the appeal is admitted for hearing on the following questions:-

(1) (a) There being non-compliance with Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in the trial court as well as in the first appellate Court, that first appeal also being by the plaintiff-landlord, was Section 13 (6) of the Act attracted in both the Courts below? (b) For the same reason, was the plaintiff entitled to a decree on the ground contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act?

( 2 ) IS the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh bedi, 1977 MP LJ 417 : (AIR 1977 Madh Pra 199) no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217. Issue notice to the other side for a date to be fixed in the office. B. P. F. within a week. The aforesaid question No. 2, arising for decision in the appeal, has naturally to be decided by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the correctness of the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indarsingh Bedi, (AIR 1977 Madh B 1


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top