Madhya Pradesh Court September 1986 Judgments
Munnalal Vs. Sardar Kartar Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC224
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging order dated 30-11-1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur in Case No. 40 of 1980.2. Appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal claimed to be an employee of respondent No. 1 in his Truck No. MPJ 9695 and suffered an accidental injury on 28-1-1980 as a result of which he get his cervical spine injured. He claims to have been admitted at the Medical College, Jabalpur on 31-1-1980 and to have been treated upto 22-5-1980. The Discharge Certificate (Ex. P-1) indicates that one Munnalal, aged about thirty years was treated as aforesaid. According to the appellant, he suffered 100% permanent total disablement. He claimed compensation from the respondents by serving notice dated 26th March, 1980. Since the aforesaid compensation was not paid, he filed his claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 19,200/- as compensation under the Act. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjidas Vs. Laxmi Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP78
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Because comprehension of the legal issues involved in this matter differed diametrically, counsel extracted, unfortunately, an extended hearing, citing unnecessarily a huge mass of case-law. This happened despite my warning, rendered to discharge my constitutional duty, that directionless arguments with misplaced emphasis served no cause of justice.2. Even at this stage, I must, as well, state that endless arguments were advanced on the scope, ambit and applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, for short, the T.P. Act, while, according to me, the controversy in issue merited resolution with reference merely to the provisions of Rule 36 of Order 21 of the Civil P.C., which I extract:'36. Decree for delivery of immovable property when in occupancy of tenant.--Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property in the occupancy of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same and not bound by the decree to relinquish such occupancy,...
Tag this Judgment!Hirabai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ659
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. The District Magistrate, Damoh being satisfied with respect to one Ramesh Kumar alias Ramesh Pahalwan, aged 24 years, r/o Dhor Bazar, Damoh that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary so to do, made an order on 20-12-1985 directing that he be detained under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act. However, as the said person was alleged to be absconding, the detention order could be executed against him only on 20-1-1986 and he could be taken into custody on the said date.2. In the meanwhile, as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate Damoh had sent a report about the detention order dt. 2042-1985 having been passed against the detenu to the State Government on 26-12-1985 and the same was approved by the State Government in its Home Department on 28-12-1985. So also, in the meanwhile, as required by Sub-section (5) of Section 3, th...
Tag this Judgment!Lauki Devi and ors. Vs. Sardar Gurlal Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC187
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 31-5-82 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Durg in case Nos. 26/80 and 27/80 dismissing the claim of the appellants on account of accidental death of Amarnath.2. Deceased Amarnath was employed as a driver with respondent No. 1 and was driving their truck No. MHG 4005 when he met with an accident on 28-4-73. As a result of the injury received in the aforesaid accident Amarnath died on 3-5-73. Since Amarnath was an employee and died of employment injury, it was claimed that the appellants were entitled to pay compensation under the Act. The application claiming compensation was however filed on 12-5-80 i.e. about more than 7 years after the death of Amarnath. It may be mentioned that appellant No. 1, the widow of late Amarnath filed her separate claim whereas the 2 other appellants being minor son and daugh...
Tag this Judgment!Straw Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC20(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Ag. C.J.1. The judgment in this case will also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Cases Nos. 282, 284, 285, 286 and 287 of 1983.2. By these references under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the railway freight in respect of the goods sold by the applicant and paid by the purchaser would form part and parcel for sale of goods under Section 2(o) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?3. The material facts giving rise to these references, briefly, are as follows :The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of straw boards. In the assessment proceedings for the calendar years 1969, 1970 and 1971, under the State Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central A...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Joshi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1603
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. In this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the order of his detention passed on 20-1-1986 by the District Magistrate, Gwalior in exercise of his alleged powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (for short, the Act').2. Asserting authority under Section 3(3) of the Act for exercise of powers under Section 3(2), the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order of detention on 20-1-1986, which is Annexure R-1. Let us, therefore, examine the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Act. They are as follows:3(2). The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential t...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. Chanderbai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC65
V.D. Gyani, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 10-7-1985, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ujjain, in Claim Case No. 58 of 1983, thereby awarding Rs. 15000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application, i.e. 9-8-1982.2. Brief facts are that on 27-3-1983 Rajesh, a young boy was grazing she-goats in the afternoon, when a bus bearing registration No. CPM-8585, driven by respondent No. 2 and belonging to the appellant while proceeding towards Neemuch from Ujjain, knocked him down in village Khodotia. A report about the accident was lodged at police station Ingoria. As a regult of the injuries sustained, Rajesh died on 2-4-1983. His mother, respondent No. 1-Chanderbai, preferred an application for compensation under Section 92A and Section 110A of the Act, claiming Rs. 48,000/-as compensation. In Sub-clause (b) of para 6 of the claim-petition...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Devi Somani Vs. Kedarnath Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987MP65
Ram Pal Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 202/1985 (Kedarnath Gupta v. Smt. Sushila Devi Somani). In both the Civil Revisions, filed under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as amended by Act No. 27 of 1983) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), both the applicants have challenged the legality of the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, on 3-6-1985 in Case No. 336/83-84 (90)(7).2. This is a battle between the landlord and tenant. One Gopal Somani was the landlord of the non-residential suit accommodation, situate in the area of Deedwana Oli, Lashkar, Gwalior. He inducted one Kedarnath (hereinafter addressed as 'tenant') in the suit premises as his tenant, on 22-6-1979, for a period of 5 years, by a registered lease deed, on a monthly rent of Rs. 750.00 p.m. Landlord, Gopal Somani, died on 19-5-1981 leaving behind him, his widow, Smt. Sushila Devi, and two major sons, Krishna Kumar Somani and Shiv Kumar Soma...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamrao Sadashiv Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1986
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ20
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the appeal of the accused Shyamrao, who on his conviction under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to seven years' R. I. on each count with the direction for the concurrent running of these sentences.2. The prosecutrix Mst. Babybai Gond is the wife of P.W.4 Ramesh and at the relevant time of the incident i.e. on 23-6-1983, she was staying at her husband's house in village Gangatwada. Parents of the prosecutrix Mst. Baby were residents of village Lodhikheda and the appellant-accused well knew the prosecutrix and her parents, inasmuch as, he had been living in front of their house at Lodhikheda for a few months, long before the incident. A day prior to 23-6-1983, the appellant-accused had come to Gangatwada and had stayed at the house of the prosecutrix's husband Ramesh. On the next day, at about mid-noon, the appellant-accused, P.W.12 Mst. Babybai and her husband P.W.4 Ramesh had started by bus together, for Lodhikheda; but on the w...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmalkumar and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ46
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment dt. 4-3-1983, passed by the lst. Addl Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1982, thereby upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence as recorded against them by the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Bannawar, vide judgment dt. 22-7-82, in Criminal Case No. 221 of 1981.2. The petitioners were prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for Short, the Act). On 16-12-1980 the Food Inspector Babulal (P. W. 1), by about 1.20 in the afternoon, inspected the premises of Jain Tea Stall, belonging to the petitioner 1 Nirmal Kumar. It was found that the articles of food stored for sale were not covered at all. It was also alleged that the vessel containing the milk was not coated with zinc-kalai licence was not exhibited in the hotel and the cooking media was also not indicated.3. During the course of investig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »