.....deceased, represented by their guardian, grand-father appellant no.3, father of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the tribunal under section 166 of m.v. act, claiming compensation of 30.00,000/- contending that deceased was aged about 37 years, doing petty business and getting substantial income and looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death they have suffered lot. the said claim petition had come up for consideration before the tribunal. the tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of ?3,75,000/-under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.4. we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for first respondent- insurer.5. after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, we do not find any error of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the expression, 'industrial establishment', as referred to in section 25-k, has been defined in clause (a) of section 25-l of the act to mean, (i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the factories act,1948; (ii) a mine as defined in the mines act,1952, or (iii) a plantation as defined in the plantation labour act,1951.for the applicability of section 25-n, it must be shown that the organization where the workmen are employed is an 'industrial establishment' within the meaning of section 25-l and further that such 'industrial establishment' must not be one of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently and that not less than one hundred workmen were employed on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months, as required under section 25-k of the act. there is no averment in the writ petition, nor any material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the organization in which the petitioner was working is an 'industrial establishment' within the meaning of section 25-l of the act and that the establishment is not one of seasonal character and that work therein is not performed intermittently and further that at least.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....section 313 cr.p.c. accused balram contended that prosecution witnesses were relatives of deceased, therefore, they spoke false against him. in fact while he was returning from his field, in front of the house of kanhaiyalal naveriya, deceased stopped him and demanded money. when he did not give money, at that time, guddu sharma abused and assaulted him. in the scuffle, they went ahead of the house. in the course of altercation, deceased picked him up and dropped on the ground due to which suddenly his gun went off accidentally and hit the deceased.5. to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses, however, relying mainly on the evidence of kanhaiyalal (pw-5), ku.vineeta naveriya (pw-7), lokesh naveriya (pw-12) as eyewitnesses and on the medical evidence of dr. a.k.agnihotri (pw-6) and dr. ashok kumar jain (pw-15), trial court held the accused persons guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, accused have filed these appeals.6. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.7. it was no longer disputed that deceased guddu sharma died of gun shot injury. it is also reflected.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....are ready to abide by any order passed by this court.(7) to appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate, if, in brief, the facts of the case are stated:-the dispute in the present case is in respect of lands bearing khasras no.3309, 3310, 3311 and 3312 of tehsil and district chhatarpur. it is alleged that these lands were originally recorded in the name of the state government. however, since 1943-44, these lands were recorded in the name of baldev who was in possession and in cultivation. these entries continued till the life time of baldev. somewhere in the year 1979, baldev died and the mutation was effected in the name of his son rambharose. rambharose sold the disputed lands by a registered sale-deed dated 3.6.1985 to govinddas. thereafter, the name of govinddas was mutated in the revenue records. govinddas also sold these lands by a registered sale-deed dated 24.3.1988 to one jogendra and on 7.5.1988, the name of jogendra was recorded in the revenue record. jogendra died and after his death, on 21.3.2003, the lands were recorded in the name of his wife alka singh, the respondent no.1.on 10.3.2000, one damodar prasad tiwari filed a complaint to the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....respondent against them on the grounds enumerated under section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the m.p. accommodation control act 1961, in short "the act".2. facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents herein filed a suit for eviction against one smt. rangoobai predecessor in title of the appellant no. 1 and 2 and also against appellant no. 3 contending that such rangoo bai and appellant no. 3 being her monthly tenant were in possession of the disputed premises comprising two rooms for residential purpose @ rs.10/- per month for each room, the same is described with boundaries in the plaint. their tenancy month was in accordance with gregorian calender month. said rangoo bai and appellant no. 3 being defaulter in payment of rent had not paid the rent of such accommodation since the year 1993 from the time of earlier owner of this house from whom the same was purchased by the respondent in the year 1999 and the aforesaid tenancy was duly attorned in her favour. the respondent landlord was in bonafide genuine need of such accommodation for the residence of her family, for which she did not possess any other suitable and convenient vacant accommodation of her own in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....both these appeals arises from the same judgment and decree, therefore these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. the brief facts of the case is that, plaintiff/appellant of f.a. no. 568/03, filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant of f.a. no. 76/04. he pleaded in the plaint interalia that he purchased the suit property from one zanab khan situated at marhotal, area 70x70 sq.ft., out of khasra no. 155 , by paying the consideration of rs. 98,000/- in cash. zanab khan also executed an agreement to sale and power-of-attorney in the favour of plaintiff/appellant of f.a. no. 568/03, on 11.06.90. it is further pleaded that in this plot on 35x56 sq.ft. there was a racked and ruined mosque, which was being made by the interest money collected by forefathers of zanab khan. therefore, for the last 66 years namaj was not performed in the mosque by the followers of islam. it is further pleaded that there is also a nag devta mandir and durga mandir situated in the suit property. plaintiff/appellant of f.a. no. 568/03, being a religious person he renovated nag devta mandir in june, 1990. he also.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....taken cognizance of offence under sections 406 and 120(b) of the indian penal code in complaint case no.2204 of 2000, t.r. no.786 of 2002.2. short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 had approached the bank for sanctioning loan for purchase of a tractor. it was alleged that all formalities were already completed by the bank official and thereafter, the bank official demanded ten thousand rupees as illegal gratification. since the demand was not fulfilled at subsequent stage, the entire documents were returned to the complainant and no loan was sanctioned in his favour. on aforesaid allegation, complaint was filed and after conducting enquiry, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under sections 406 and 120(b) of the indian penal code.3. aggrieved with the order of cognizance, both the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition. on 16.12.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this court directed that in the meantime, further proceeding pending in the court of judicial magistrate, ist class, saran at chapra in t.r. no.786 of 2002 shall remain stayed. thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the case was admitted for hearing. at the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....muzaffarpur in saraiya p.s. case no.11 of 1997. by both the orders, prayer of petitioner for being substituted as complainant was rejected.2. short fact of the case is that in the year 1996, a complaint was filed by one urmila devi, which was numbered as complaint case no.1166 of 1996. subsequently, the learned magistrate, under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure, referred the complaint to the police for its institution and investigation. thereafter, an f.i.r. vide saraiya p.s. case no.11 of 1997 was registered. in the meanwhile, a protest petition was filed on behalf of urmila devi. after investigation, police submitted final report. again, while the protest petition was pending as per intervention of senior police officers, the investigation in respect of saraiya p.s. case no.11 of 1997 was re-opened and matter was thoroughly investigated and again it was found that allegation in the f.i.r. was un-true and as such, at subsequent stage also, final report was submitted. during the pendency of the protest petition, the complainant urmila devi died. after the death of complainant, on 6.3.2000, a petition was filed by the petitioner, who is son of late urmila devi.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT1. heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. appellant is in appeal against the order of the learned single judge dated 20.08.2010, whereby a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the appellant based on the judgment of the gujarat high court in kotak mahindra bank ltd v. official liquidator of m/s. aps star industries ltd and others [2009 (2) bankers' journal 755] was distinguished by holding that the respondents herein could maintain the winding up petition. 3. the appellants were indebted to the state bank of india who had obtained a certificate in their favour from drt which was assigned in favour of m/s kotak mahindra bank ltd upon which they have filed winding up petition. 4. the issue of assigning all debts and the judgment of the gujarat high court has been resolved by the supreme court in icici bank limited versus official liquidator of aps star industries ltd. & ors. decided on 30th september, 2010. 5. considering the judgment of the supreme court, the objection as raised by the appellant no longer survives and the appeal as filed is not maintainable. appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....his complaint, or to pacify him before the resignation was accepted on the next day. 9. learned counsel for the petitioner states that statement of fact in the order of acceptance of resignation dated 27.4.2000 that he was given time to think over the matter to change his mind, but was not amenable to advice and was adamant, is incorrect. there was nothing to show that the district judge or any officer had talked to him and that the acceptance of resignation within 24 hours, without waiting upto 1.5.2000, was arbitrary and clearly suggests that the district judge wanted to get rid of him and had manipulated his resignation. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner realised his mistake, and gave a letter of apology, withdrawing all allegations against the district judge and his resignation on 28.4.2000. the district judge could have rejected the application, when it was presented before him on 29.4.2000; instead he directed the application to be put up on 1.5.2000, clearly establishing that the order of acceptance of resignation, was backdated. 10. learned counsel would further submit that the learned single judge has not appreciated the correct.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT