Madhya Pradesh Court July 1988 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1990ACJ206; 1989MPLJ90
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A No. 202 of 1984 (Sashikumar v. Ambaram), as also M.A No. 204 of 1984 (Ramchandra v. Ambaram), as all these appeals, though filed separately, are directed against the same award dated 21st January, 1984 given by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 21 of 1982.2. Misc. Appeal No. 119 of 1984 has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the driver Ramlal, against the award of Rs. 55,900/- passed in favour of claimant Ramchandra and Rs. 1,300/- in favour of claimant Sashikumar along with costs and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.3. Misc. Appeal No. 204 of 1984 has been filed by the claimant Ramchandra for the enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-.4. Misc. Appeal No. 202 of 1984 filed by claimant Sashikumar is for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-.5. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be stated, in brief, ...
Cine Pradarshak Sangh, Sagar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP70; 1988MPLJ638
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. It is unfortunate that in spite of a decision of this Court in Bhotwal Talkies v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.P. No. 681/83, decided on 11-12-1984 (Indore), the State Government and its officers and servants are continuing to make illegal and excessive recoveries of entertainment duty from the film exhibition by persisting on their fanciful interpretation of Section 3 and other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936, (for short, the 'Act'), and have forced them and their associations to file the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for similar reliefs.2. The petitioners 2 to 7 are film exhibitors of Sagar and the petitioner 1 is their association. The petitioners 8 and 9 are also file exhibitors, exhibiting their films at Jabalpur. The petitioner 10 claims itself to be a body interested in the welfare of the film exhibitors in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner 11 is a cine-goer. Their common gr...
Azizunnisha Wd/O Mohd. YasIn Hyder Vs. Channanlal S/O Kishan Chandra a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1988
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ303
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal Under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30th October, 1984 passed by V Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 20-A of 1981, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 7-8-1981, passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 47-A of 1981, dismissing the appellant's suit for eviction of the respondents from the suit shop.2. The shop in dispute is known as House No. 58, Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur and is admittedly in occupation of the respondents who are tenants thereof and are carrying on their dry cleaning business under the name and style of 'Sunshine Dry Cleaners'. There is no dispute that the appellant is the owner and landlord in relation to the suit house. She filed the suit for eviction of respondents on the ground that she needs the suit shop bona fide tailoring business of her son Mohd. Idrees for which she has no other alternative accommo...
Sumanlata Vs. Omprakash Saini and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC87; 1989MPLJ492
Faizanuddin, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the respondent No. 1 and 2 herein directing them to produce the female child Ku. Chandra Prabha Saini, respondent No. 3 herein, before the Court, and restore her custody to the petitioner who is the mother of the said child.2. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. Admittedly, the petitioner was wedded to the respondent No. 1 on 26-5-1983, according to the Hindu rites and out of their wedlock the only female child, namely, Ku. Chandra Prabha Saini, the respondent No. 3, herein, was born on 7th August. 1985. The petitioner's husband respondent No. 1 is employed as a Instructor in I.T.I. Sehore. The respondent No. 2 Raghuvir Prasad Saini is the father of respondent No. 1. The petitioner's allegations are that the behaviour of the respondents towards her was cruel and she was subjected to physical violence by them which forced her to leave ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Babulal Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR497(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.C.C. No. 253 of 1987 (CWT v. Babulal Agrawal) and M.C.C. No. 254 of 1987 (CWT v. Babulal Agrawal) as the petitioner has proposed a common question of law in all these petitions relating to the same party.2. By these reference applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the applicant has prayed that the Tribunal be called upon to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj's case : [1986]157ITR330(SC) the penalty for default under Section 18(1)(a) was required to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the amended law even in respect of default for the period prior to the amendment made with effect from April 1, 1976?'3. The statement of facts may be stated, in brief, thus : The assessee is an individual....
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.M. Shukla and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC491
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company against the award, dated 5-12-1986, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalpur in Claim Case No.12 of 84, making the appellant responsible for payment of Rs. 31,075/- as compensation to respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 1 filed his claim under Section 110-A of the Act against the appellant and respondent No. 2 complaining that he suffer-red permanent injury and disablement on account of accident on 6-8-1983 by the truck No. MRJ 5044 owned and driven by respondent No. 2. The said truck is admittedly insured with the appellant. It however appears that the respondent No. 2 submitted the proposal for obtaining insurance at 6-05 p.m. on 6-8-1983 itself without disclosing this accident which admittedly had taken place at about 10-30 a.m. and was within his knowledge. Though para 8 of this proposal required the non-applicant No. 2 to give details of accidents during last 2 ye...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Chaddha and Company and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas6(MP)
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of the order dated April 17, 1988, passed by the learned VIth Additional Judge, to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 148-A of 1984 whereby the plaintiff/applicants' suit for recovery of Rs. 6,17,829.95 against Chadha and Co. and others has been stayed under the provisions of Section 6 of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, Act No. 40 of 1983 (for short, 'the Act').2. The main contention of Shri A.K. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff-bank, is that the suit was filed against respondent No. 7, Sitaram Mills Co. Ltd., the borrower, for realisation of the loan amount advanced by the bank and others were impleaded as necessary parties to the suit making them jointly and severally liable. The management of this mill was taken over by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act. After taking over the management,...
Gulabsingh Vs. Kalpana Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC421
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision by the petitioner, Gulab Singh S/o Fatesingh, against the order dated 7th August, 1986, passed in Case No 57/86, by the VIIIth Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore, Counsel heard. 2. Short facts leading to this revision are, that one Narainsingh, constable, who died in a motor accident on 28-9-1985. He was survived with his widow, three minor children, (one son and two daughters). The petitioner is a father of the deceased Narainsingh. Non-petitioner No. 2, Ramesh alias Narayansingh, is a father of the widow, Kalpanabai. The name of the deceased was entered as owner of a house in the ownership registers of the Municipal Corporation. After his death, Rs. 19000/- were received by widow, Kalpanabai from the State Government in family benefit scheme. The widow alongwith her three children, i.e. two daughters (i) Banti, aged about 4-5 years (ii) Tina, aged about 3 years and (iii) a son, Rajkumar, aged about 2 years, was staying with in-laws. It ...
Vimalchand and anr. Vs. Smt. Gyanmala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989MP140
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Civil P.C, against the order dated 6-1-1988, passed by the District Judge, Dewas in Misc, Civil Case No. 14/84, allowing the application under 0.33,. R, 1, C.P.C. of the non-applicant, allowing the non-applicant to sue as an indigent person and ordered the plaint filed by her to be treated as a plaint in the suit and the suit has to proceed in all other respects as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner, except for payment of court-fees.2. The main contention of Shri K. B. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners (non-applicants before the Trial Court) was that the report of the Collector in respect of pauperism was against the non-applicant, but the learned District Judge, without considering the said report and holding that no report is received, held on enquiry made by it, the non-applicant/plaintiff as an indigrent person. The Court-fees payable on the suit for partition is of Rs. 11,0007-on the share of the plai...
Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1430
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The accused/appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 394 I. P. C. read with Sections 11 and 13 of M. P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 by the Special Judge, Morena, and sentenced to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as set out in the first information report (Ex. P/3) lodged by Raghuraj Singh (P. W. 2) is that the accused/ respondent was known to him for little over a month prior to the date of the incident, On 9-8-1983, Raghuraj Singh accompanied by his brother-in-law Rustam Singh (P.. W. 3) was returning from Ruar. At Porsa, the accused Surendra Singh met them and asked them to accompany him to village Matiyapura so as to stay with Ramniwas and Munna, his friends. All the three left Porsa for village Matiyapura. At about 11 a.m. all of a sudden, accused Surendra Singh took out a pistol from a bag resting on his shoulder and demanded money from Raghuraj Singh. Raghuraj Singh (P. W. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »