Junior Engineer, Vs. Purna Bai

Junior Engineer, vs Purna Bai

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 27, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046341

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1046341
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 27, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Junior Engineer,

Advocate Shri. Mahendra Pateria, Shri. S.K.Chaturvedi

Respondent

Purna Bai

Advocate Shri. Kamlesh Mishra

Excerpt

.....could not be heard on merits for final disposal, therefore the hearing for final disposal of this appeal is hereby differed till passing the order of admission in f.a.no.273/2012. ia no.15483/11, appellants' application under order 41, rule 5 of the cpc is also found pending in the matter. the same is taken for consideration. appellants' counsel submits that in the available factual matrix and the evidence, it could not be assumed that due to fault of the organization the alleged death of panjiyaji took place by electrocution and, therefore, the appellants are not bound to pay the decreetal sum to the respondents - claimants and for grant of stay, as prayed. aforesaid prayer is seriously opposed by the respondents' counsel saying that in view of principle of “strict liability”. laid down by the apex court, the appellants organization could not escape from the alleged liability of the impugned money decree and prayed for dismissal of this ia. having heard, keeping in view the arguments, after perusing the record of the trial court alongwith the impugned judgment and considering the principle of “strict liability”. held by the hon'ble apex court, the appellant nos.1 and 2's - organization is directed to deposit the entire decreetal sum alongwith the interest and cost within 60 days from today with the trial/execution court and such court is directed that on depositing the aforesaid sum within the aforesaid period instead to disburs.the principle sum to the respondents - decree holders.the same be kept with some nationalized bank under some fixed deposit scheme with stipulation to pay its monthly interest to the respondents- decree holders according to their ratio until further order of this court. let this matter be listed after 15 days alongwith f.a.no.273/2012 for further orders.c c as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge bks

Full Judgment

FiRs.Appeal No.1208/2011 27.07.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateria with Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Kamlesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents- decree holdeRs.Although this matter is listed for final hearing in the list of motion hearing cases but unless F.A.No.273/2012 filed against the impugned judgment by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the impugned judgment is matured for admission, this appeal could not be heard on merits for final disposal, therefore the hearing for final disposal of this appeal is hereby differed till passing the order of admission in F.A.No.273/2012.

IA No.15483/11, appellants' application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC is also found pending in the matter.

The same is taken for consideration.

Appellants' counsel submits that in the available factual matrix and the evidence, it could not be assumed that due to fault of the organization the alleged death of Panjiyaji took place by electrocution and, therefore, the appellants are not bound to pay the decreetal sum to the respondents - claimants and for grant of stay, as prayed.

Aforesaid prayer is seriously opposed by the respondents' counsel saying that in view of principle of “Strict Liability”.

laid down by the Apex Court, the appellants organization could not escape from the alleged liability of the impugned money decree and prayed for dismissal of this IA.

Having heard, keeping in view the arguments, after perusing the record of the trial court alongwith the impugned judgment and considering the principle of “Strict Liability”.

held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant Nos.1 and 2's - Organization is directed to deposit the entire decreetal sum alongwith the interest and cost within 60 days from today with the trial/execution court and such court is directed that on depositing the aforesaid sum within the aforesaid period instead to disbuRs.the principle sum to the respondents - decree holdeRs.the same be kept with some nationalized bank under some fixed deposit scheme with stipulation to pay its monthly interest to the respondents- decree holders according to their ratio until further order of this Court.

Let this matter be listed after 15 days alongwith F.A.No.273/2012 for further ordeRs.C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Junior Engineer, vs Purna Bai Same Subject Land Acquisition