Chhattisgarh Court October 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusum Bai and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT26(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard.2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 24-7-2002 passed by the VIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg.3. Initially statement was made by Counsel for the appellant that the matter was to be heard by the Division Bench whereas the appeal is against the no fault liability/award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Counsel submits that this statement has been made inadvertently.4. So far as no fault liability is concerned, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. It is not in dispute that is that the vehicle which is insured has dashed with the offending truck. Soon after the incident, the matter was reported to the Police Station, Don-gargarh. The police registered Crime No. 201/2000 and investigated the matter. The post-mortem report, seizure memo and documents have been filed which show that the person was the registered owner who drove the vehicl...
Salim and ors. Vs. Shakti Pictures Serkit Limited
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT19(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. This appeal by tenant is against the judgment and decree dated 18-2-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 46-A/97 whereby learned Court below has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled for exemption under Section 3 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The notification is published in Part I of the 'Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra', dated the 22nd May, 1964. Said notification is quoted below :--'GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT Bhopal, dt. 13 May, 1964 - Vaisakha 23, 1886. No. 2087-1180-II-A-(3).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. 41 of 1961) the State Government hereby exempts the plot of land bearing khasra No. 280.2 in Mahal No. 2, Baijnathpara, Raipur, in...
Smt. Mukta Bai and ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Gupta and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT28(CG)
Fakhruddin, J. 1. This appeal is against the award dated 5-7-2000 passed in Claim Case No. 14/2000 whereby the Claims Tribunal though finding the legal heirs of the deceased entitled to get award of 'no fault liability' awarded only Rs. 25,000/- and the owner and insurance company were directed to pay jointly and severally only Rs. 25,000/-.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been amended by Act No. 54 and under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 the amount of no fault liability in the death cases by the use of motor vehicle has been enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and therefore the Claims Tribunal has erred in law in awarding Rs. 25,000/- to the appellants.3. It is stated that after coming into force of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 (Act No. 30 of 2001) some of the Claims Tribunal have started awarding Rs. 25,000/- towards award of no fault liability in the death cases by the use o...
Puran and ors. Vs. Suraj Patel and anr.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC656; AIR2004Chh9; 2003(1)MPHT9(CG)
Fakhruddin, J.1. With consent of the learned Counsel for the both parties, heard finally.2. The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 21-7-2000 passed by the 4th Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, whereby the application filed by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of no fault liability has been rejected.3. The applicants filed a claim petition on the ground that on 1-6-96, while Sukalu father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 was travelling in a tractor bearing No. M.Q.L. 4694 and trolley bearing No. M.Q.L. 4695 from Surajpura to Bandhya, he fell down from the tractor due to rash and negligent driving of driver Kunwar Singh/respondent No. 2. He was treated but he died on 9-6-96 as a result of the motor accident. Regarding death, Crime No. 40/96 was registered at Police Station, Lalpur for under Sections 279, 325 and 338(A) of IPC. A prayer for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was made. The respondent Nos. 1 and...
Dhiraj Kumar @ Golu Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard both the Counsel on the merits of the petition and the petition is disposed of on merits.2. The petitioner is an accused in S.T. No. 26/2002, pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Korba. He has in this petition challenged the order dated 23-7-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, in the said case rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.PC for recalling the witness Pramod Kumar (P.W. 3) for cross-examination by the Senior Counsel.3. It is stated that the case was posted on 11-7-2002 for recording the evidence of Pramod Kumar (P.W. 3). His evidence was recorded in examination-in-chief. Thereafter, it is the case of the applicant that he had engaged a Senior Counsel namely, Shri B.K. Shukla on his behalf. On that day he was not available in the second half of the day as he had gone for his personal work and the Senior Counsel could not cross-examine P.W. 3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for...
Smt. Santoshi Vs. Smt. Kirti Sahu and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT23(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 2-5-2001 passed by the Court below.2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 preferred an Election petition under Section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 to challenge the election of the applicant as a Councillor of Ward No. 2 of Municipal Council Charoda, Bhilai. The election petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the election petition. The application was opposed by the present applicant. The Court below by the impugned order has allowed the application and condoned the delay.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law as there is no provision under the M.P. Municipalities Act for condonation of delay.4. In the instant case the election petition was filed under Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act is rele...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›