Madhya Pradesh Court February 1985 Judgments
S.M. HussaIn Vs. the Raipur Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC68
S. Awasthy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful claimant in Claim Case No. 7 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnadgaon decided on 16-1-1978. The evidence has been recorded in Claim Case No. 4 of 1976. The accident which took place on 23-11-1975 by bus No.CPS 8937, belonging to the non-applicant No. 1, resulted in 4 Claim Case Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 of 1976. The award with reasoning was passed in Claim Case No. 4 of 1976,2. The appellant has claimed Rs. 48,200/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. We have held in Misc. (First) Appeal No. 193/78 and Misc. (First) Appeal No. 110 of 1978 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the jrespondent no. 1 in not putting a serviceable tyre on the right front wheel of the bus no. CPS 8937. Hence, the respondents have been made liable to pay compensation.3. We, therefore, proceed to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmadji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP1
C.P. Sen, J. 1. In this writ petition thepetitioner is challenging the order ofconfiscation of truck dated 20-12-1982 passed.by the Divisional Forest Officer under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927.2. The petitioner owned truck No. MPD 4822 which is a 1973 model Tata Mercedese truck. The petitioner carries on transport business with this truck. On the night intervening 19th and 20th September 1981 the said truck loaded with mango tree logs were seized from the saw MILL of Rathore Saw Mill, Bhawani Marg Road, Khandwa. One Idu Khan was in the truck. Since there was no transit pass as required under the M. P. Forest Produce (Transit) Rules, 1961, the truck and the logs of wood were seized under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act; read with rule 3 of the Transit Rules. Transportation of forest produce without transit pass is punishable under rule 29. By application dated 21-9-1981 Idu Khan expressed a desire to compound the offence. The Divisional Forest Officer by order dated 30-9-1981 com...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Ramshakal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC91
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and its Depot Manager, against the award dated 3-8-1981 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 31 of 1978 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till payment to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased Rampyare who died as a result of the accident caused by the bus belonging to the appellant. A cross objection has also been filed by the respondents claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The learned Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record found that on the date of incident i.e. 6-3-1978 the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 3 the driver of the bus no. MPG 9766 belonging to the appellants and Rampyare died as a result of that accident. For determining that amo...
Tag this Judgment!Magankunwar Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. Bhopal and 3 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC97
K.L. Srivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-11-1983 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Shajapur in Claim Case No. 20 of 1980 whereby the petitioner's evidence stands closed.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these, the claim case referred to above, is one out of the 35 claims cases pending before the Tribunal in connection with a motor accident dated 6-5-1980 initially, when the case stood adjourned to 16th and 17th June 1983 for petitioner's evidence, the learned Tribunal in absence of their evidence, rejecting the counsel's prayer for an adjournment for adducing evidence, adjourned the case for fixing a date for opposite parties' evidence. Subsequently, on 26-8-1983, the petitioners moved an application Under Section 151 CPC praying that they have kept their witnesses present and they be examined. On 10-10-1983, when the application was to be considered, the learned Member of the Tribunal was on leave and t...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP49
U.N. Bhachawat, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution, whereby the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11th May, 1984 (AnnexureP4) of the. Prescribed Authority (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Tribunal) under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1981 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act) (the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghogarh), whereby it has set aside the co-option under Section 117 of the Act of petitioner No. 2.2. The short facts, leading to the present petition are these : The matter relates to the constitution of Gram Panchayat, Guruji-ka-Khejra. After the election of the Panchas, a meeting of the elected Panchas was held on 6th July, 1983 for co-option, wherein petitioner No. 2, namely Kapuribai and one Halkibai were co-opted as the Panchas of the said Panchayat.2.01. This co-option was notified on 22nd July, 1983. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the aforesaid co-option, filed a petition, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamitsingh, Indore Vs. Collector and Licensing Authority Under Drugs R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP148
Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner, who has awholesale and retail distribution shop of drugs,cosmetics and cutlery at Malwa Mill Chourahain the name and style of Dilip Medical Stores,has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India in the matter of theDrugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to quash theorder of suspension of the petitioner's license,dated 1-3-83 passed by respondent No.l(Annexure-H) as also the order dated 5-8-83 passed by respondent No. 2 Annexure-K.2. The short facts giving rise to this petition, which are not in dispute may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner was granted license in Forms Nos. 20, 20B, 21 and 21-B bearing No. 402 from the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On 7-8-82 at about 1 p.m. the Drug Inspectors came to the shop of the petitioner. But the petitioner at that time was not present in his shop though his brother Dilip Singh was present. The...
Tag this Judgment!Virendrasingh Vs. Collector, District Indore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986MP159
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. The petitioner who runs a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Gee Jay & Company, at Subhash Marg, Indore has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for quashing the order Annexure-D which was communicated to the petitioner on 25-7-83 by Annexure-E whereby out of the security deposit made by the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1000/- was ordered to be forfeited.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, which are no longer in dispute, may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s Gee Jay and Company which has obtained a license under the said Order for running a petrol pump where only petrol is sold. On 31st May 1983 some Food Inspectors had carried out checking of the petitioner's petrol pump. However, they noted following infirmities :(1) Out of 677 litres of petrol sold, bills were fou...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devi Das and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC153
K.L. Shrivastava, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeals Nos. 228 of 1977 and 229 of 1977 which also arise out of the motor accident dated 15-12-1973.2. It is not in dispute that the accident truck bearing registration No. MPF 7535 owned by Devidas (since deceased) and insured with the appellant against third party risk, was being driven by Madanlal when at about 7 a.m. on 15-12-1973 on the Sanwer Road, at the Railway level crossing between Railway Station Manglia and Laxmibai Nagar, it had collided against the running train. The accident had resulted in three deaths. The legal representatives of the deceased filed three separate claim petitions and the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, by its separate awards dated 6-7-1977 granted Rs. 11,000/- as compensation to each set of claimants. The particulars of the claim cases and the connected appeals are as under: ___________________________________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila JaIn Vs. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC411
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the widow of the insurer challenging the order of the Insurance Company directing the petitioner to produce a succession certificate for paying the amount due under the policy taken out by her late husband for personal accident and sickness insurance.2. The petitioner is the widow of late Santosh Kumar Jain. According to the petitioner he has taken out a personal accident and sickness insurance policy under the proposal form on 27 9.1980 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-mentioning the petitioner as a nominee. Her husband met with a car accident on 9.8.1980 between Sehore and Ashta and died. The petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent No. 1 Insurance Company but the Company avoided to make payment and ultimately by letter dated 21.1.1983 directed the petitioner to produce a succession certificate for paying the amount due under the policy. According to her, the insurance Company was bound to make the payment to h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›