Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.64 seconds)

Badri Prasad vs Satish Kumar Sharma on 22 November, 1963

In Khubchand Baghel v. vIDYACHARAN Shukla, AIR 1963 Madh Pra 336 the 'Madnva Pradesh High Court cautioned the need of carrying the analogy of the criminal proceedings too far and avoiding confusion or abstract considerations of the question of burden of proof. Repelling an argument that the Bombay decision reported in 22 Ele LR 385 (Bom) is in conflict with the Supreme Court deci sion in 22 Ele LR 261 (SC) the learned Judges laid down the rules as follows.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Habib Bhai vs Pyarelal And Ors. on 26 September, 1963

12. The question whether the statements contained in the pamphlet (annexure I) are statements of facts and further the question whether they relate to the personal character or conduct of Banwarilal were discussed at length before us. The learned counsel for the parties cited a number of rulings on the points; in particular, they referred to Kanhaiyalal Tiwari v. Shyam Sunder Narayan, 15 Ele LR 284 (MPJ; Sudhir Laxman v. Shripat Amrit Dange, 17 Ele LR 373: (AIR 1960 Bom 249); Sarla Devi v. Birendra Singh, 20 Ele LR 275: (AIR 1961 Madh Pra 127); Gangi Reddy v. Anjaneya Reddy, 22 Ele LR 261 (SC); Khubchand Baghel v. Vidyacharan Shukla, F. A. No. 23 of 1963, D/- 23-4-63: (AIR 1963 Madh Pra 306); Mohansingh v. Bhanwar Lal, 1963 MPLJ 498; Inderlal v. Lalsingh, AIR 1962 SC 1156 and Sheo Mahadeo Prasad v. Deva Sharan, (S) AIR 1955 Pat 81.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1