Madhya Pradesh Court January 1985 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.
Brijmohan Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1985MP215
R.K. Varma, J. 1. By this petition u/A. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the Order dated 31-5-83 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) whereby the Collector, Indore, who is the Requisioning Authority under the M. P. Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has requisitioned the Accommodation owned by the petitioner.2. The petitioner owns the house consisting of six rooms on the ground floor and six rooms on the first floor. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Katariya was occupying the ground floor of the house as a tenant of the petitioner and that the petitioner was occupying the first floor of the house. As the portion occupied by the petitioner and his family was insufficient for their residential need, the petitioner persuaded the tenant to vacate the accommodation occupied by him on the ground floor and the tenant vacated the said accommodation on 1-12-1982 and the same was occupied by the petitioner.3. Th...
Rajendar Kumar and anr. Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC277
U.N. Bhachawat, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1978 (Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bhopal v. Rajendra Kumar and another).2. The short facts giving rise to these appeals are these:2.01. The appellant was injured while he was traveling in a bus bearing registration No MPW. 8390 on 7-4-1976; when this bus was being plied from Gwalior for Indore, it met with an accident; the bus is owned by respondent no 1, the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter, for short, referred to as 'the Corporation') and was being driven by respondent no. 2 at the relevant time.2.02. The appellant who was injured in the aforesaid accident, had received an injury on his right leg, which had, ultimately, to be amputated. The appellant filed an application for compensation for his injury Under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 81,400,00, alleging that the accident had occurre...
Daya Bhai Patel and Co. and anr. Vs. Sunderbai and 5 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC486
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 113 of 1980, as both these appeals arise out of the same accident, in the claim petitions filed separately by different claimants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Misc. Appeal No. 112 of 1980 arise out of claim petition No. 13 of 1977 in which the claimants had put up a claim of Rs. 1,78,280/- though the learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- plus cost and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident, i.e. 5-6-1977.3. Misc. Appeal No. 113 of 1980 arises out of claim petition No. 12 of 1977 in which the claimants had put up a claim of Rs. 1,79,060/- though the learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 56,640/- plus cost and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the accident which took place on 5-6-1977.4. Facts giving rise to these appeals, which are no longer in disput...
Jagmansingh Vs. Hemsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP112
ORDERK.K. Verma, J. 1. This order shall govern the question of maintainability of this Civil Revision {No. 1041 of 1984) as well as Civil Revision Nos. 1043/84,837/84, 28/84,924/84, 895/84, 925/84, 1033/84, 1037/84, 965/84, 1036/84 and 10/85, filed after 14-8-1984 arising out of orders passed by the Judges of Courts of District Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Appeals preferred from appealable orders passed by the Courts of Civil Judge, Class I and Class II in suits of valuation of less than Rs. 20,000/-. It shall also govern C.R.No. 990/84 in which an appellate decree in which no second appeal lies in view of Sections 96(4) and 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sought to be revised. 2. The counsel have been heard on admission of these civil revision petitions in which the point mooted was whether these revision petitions (filed in the High Court after 14-8-1984) are maintainable in the wake of the amendment brought about in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Code...
Auto Pins (India) (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC287(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. The petitioner, a sales tax assessee, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of assessment passed by respondent No. 1 on 31st December, 1981 (annexure 20).2. The case of the petitioner may be stated in brief thus : The petitioners are carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of auto parts. Petitioner No. 1 submitted its returns as the representative of the firm for the period from 1st October, 1971, to 30th September, 1972. The said assessment was completed by the Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. Ill, Indore, on 10th April, 1974, as per annexure 6.3. After the completion of the said assessment, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 27th May, 1977, under Section 39(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, as respondent No. 2, under the suo motu powers of revision felt that the order of assessment did not contain any reasoning for deducting a sum of Rs. 62,173.20 from the opening stock of Rs. 1,23,375.50. Accordin...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Deenyar Bomanjee a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC527
S.K. Seth, J.1. In an accident that took place on 21-5-1977 near a Pulia on Chhindwara-Balaghat road, there was a collision between a bus and a truck. The bus belonged to claimant Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and was being driven by driver A.W. 1 Nathu Bhau at the relevant time. The truck belonged to N.A. No. 1 Deenyar Bomanjee and was being driven by Non-applicant No. 2 Abdul Rehman at the relevant time. The Claimant-Corporation made an application to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni claiming Rs. 1932.52P from the Non-applicants as compensation for the damage caused to the bus by the rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No. 2. A further amount of Rs. 4500/- was also claimed as compensation for the loss caused to the claimant Corporation due to non-operation of the bus for a period of 9 days. The insurance company i.e. the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the truck had been insured was joined as Non-applicant No. 3 in th...
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sitaram and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC322; 1986MPLJ17
S.K. Seth, J.1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa vide its award dated 30.1.1979 passed in Claim Case No. 2 of 1978 ordered the three opposite parties namely the owner of the truck, its driver and the insurer i.e. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., to pay to the claimant i.e Dr. Sitaram Rs. 4,800/- with interest as compensation for the damage to the motor-cycle of the claimant caused in a motor accident involving the said truck. Being aggrieved by the said award, one of the oppesite parties namely the insurer has filed the present appeal in this Court.2. The sole contention of the insurer in the present appeal is that Section 96(2) read with Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 restricted the statutory liability of an insurer in respect of damage to any property of a third party to a limit of Rs. 2,000/- and as such in the present case the Tribunal acted illegally in making the insurer liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,800/- jointly and s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›