Madhya Pradesh Court January 1989 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ938
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The insurer, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has come up in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') against an interim award dated 15.7.1988, passed under Section 92-A in Claim Case No. 360 of 1987 by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow-Indore.2. Mr. B.K. Samadani, learned Counsel for the appellant, raised a short submission that though the tractor was insured with the insurance company, but the trolley which was registered was not insured on which the deceased Dhansingh was sitting and by use of the said tractor and trolley on 5.1.1987 he died in a motor accident. Learned counsel contended that as the trolley was not insured, the Tribunal was not having any jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 92-A of the Act awarding Rs. 15,000/- as interim compensation.3. Mr. Kishore Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that the Tribunal after holding a prima facie enquiry has come to a finding that...
Teja and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ262; 1989MPLJ506
B.C. Varma, J. 1. In all five persons were prosecuted and have since been convicted under Sections 148 and 302, Penal Code, for forming an unlawful assembly with common object to assault and for causing the death of Rambharos. This appeal was filed by all of them against that conviction. However, during the pendency of this appeal, accused Jagdish and Jai Narayan, both sons of Somaji died/There appeal thus abates.2. In village Sontalai, Police Station Handiya, in Harda district, there exists long standing fued between members of Jat community on one hand and Vishnoi on the other. In the year 1961, one Jagannath Vishnoi was killed. Rambharos (the deceased) was an accused in that case. Since then, members of the two communities had always been hostile to each other. The incident which has given rise to this appeal is dated 16-8-1982. Two persons -- Rambharos of the Jat Community and Sona of the Vishnoi community -- were killed. The appellants have been convicted for causing death of Ramb...
Mulay Brothers Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-1989
Reported in: 1989MPLJ422; [1991]81STC269(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. The petitioner-firm is seeking a declaration that it is not covered either under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sales Tax Act'), or the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entry Tax Act') and, therefore, it is not liable to be registered under any of these Acts or to pay any tax. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the notice dated June 8, 1987, issued by the Sales Tax Officer (respondent No. 2), under Section 29(1) of the Sales Tax Act for production of account books from the beginning of the business till todate, and the order of the Sales Tax Officer (respondent No. 3) dated September 10, 1987, to submit particulars about all the purchases made between the period December 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987 and April 1, 1987 to August 31, 1987, in regard to its work at Malajkhand, which according to the petitioner is a pure labour contract for excavation of rock and earth ...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Harish Jayanti Prasad Agarwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ611MP; 1990MPLJ97
1. Two short points raised by the petition in this matter merit a still shorter order.2. Indeed if anything more in this context we have to say, we say that the grievance, which the non-applicant workman agitated before the Labour Court was itself a short one, which happily, has been redressed by the two Courts in admirable manner.3. The short dispute which was raised was whether respondent workman was to be treated as a 'permanent employee' and had to be paid salary of the post of Lower Division Clerk, in the employment of the petitioner. The first challenge, which Shri R.D. Jain, appearing for the petitioner vocalised is on the question of limitation. That contention must be rebuffed immediately, as the question was not at all raised in any of the two Courts below. In doing so we have borne in mind limitations of centioriari jurisdiction and we have told Shri Jain that we are concerned merely to see whether the impugned order passed in appeal by the Industrial Court (Annexture P-8) s...
Manubai Vs. Sukhdeo
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ646; 1989MPLJ433
ORDERK.L. Srivastava, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against the re-visional order dt. 23-3-87 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Dhar Carnp Maria-war in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1986 whereby the petitioner's revision against the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting her application under Section 125 of the Code, to make monthly allowance, for her maintenance, has been dismissed.2. Learned inquiring Magistrate has disallowed the petitioner's application on the ground that she has been unable to prove that there has been neglect of refusal on the part of her husband - the non-applicant to maintain, her.3. The revisional Court has found that on the material on record, the impugned order is sustainable and no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction was called for.4. The point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed.5. Section 125 of the Code, irresp...
Ramji Sharma Vs. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1989MP247
T.N. Singh, J.1. After a great deal of hesitation, after more than one 'last chance' expired, return of the first respondent came on record in this matter on 16-12-1988. That respondent is the Registrar of this Court, albeit at the Main Seat. Indeed, from the Main Seat, a 'Memorandum' was issued on 8-10-1984 under the signature of the Deputy Registrar and in this matter, validity thereof is seriously assailed.2. Other respondents are the State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Gwalior, impleaded as respondent 2, besides the Deputy Registrar of this Court who has been impleaded as respondent 3. On 7-10-1988, this Court look the tentative view that the question agitated concerned exemption of court-fees, albeit under a State Government Notification, and as such, a return in this matter from respondent 2 would be welcome. However, on 16-12-1988, State Counsel, Shri Govind Singh, made a statement at the Bar that he was not representing any other respondent except respondent 2 and he fur...
Vijay Singh Jadon Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ583MP; 1988MPLJ640
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. In this matter, we had passed an interim order on 5th September 1988, since reported in 1988 MPLJ 640. By that order, we decided the general question as to whether all petitions concerning 'service matters' filed in this Court at this Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution would stand automatically 'transferred' to the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, for short, the 'Tribunal', established on and from 2nd August 1988. We took the view that Benches of the said Tribunal not being established at the existing 'seats' of this Court such as this Bench, there would be no automatic transfer of those cases to the 'principal seat' of the Tribunal established at Jabalpur under State Government Notification dated 28th August 1988.2. Accordingly, the instant petition as also other petitions involving 'service matters' have been retained at this Bench's Registry, to be dealt with in accordance with the directions made by us in the order passed on 5th September 1988. In ...
Mst. Anisa Bano Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(MP)72; [1989]177ITR368(MP)
ORDER UNDER S. 132(3)--Pertaining to bank account of petitioners who have been assessed under Amnesty SchemeHELD:The authorities have erred in issuing porhibitory orders pertaining to the bank accounts of the petitioners while assessing the income of the firms in which the husbands of the petitioners are the partners. The amnesty is available to the petitioners, since the amount declared by each of them is in their names. Therefore, their failure to explain the source of income would not deprive them of theh amnesty under the Scheme under which they have declared their income and have been assessed to tax accordingly. The prohibitory orders passed by the authorities in relation to the savings bank accounts of the petitioners are therefore quashed. Income Tax Act 1961 s.132 ...
Himchalsingh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1490
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. Himachal Singh applicant is being tried by the Special Judge, Camp Sabalgarh in Special Case No. 2 of 1986 for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has engaged Shri Bahadur Singh Dhakad, a Senior Counsel to defend himself. On 21-11-1988 the case was fixed for recording evidence. On this date, it appears that Shri Bahadur Singh Dhakad, Counsel of the applicant was seriously ill and therefore, he could not attend the hearing of case. The applicant, therefore, moved an application for adjournment. This application is purported to have been filed under Section 309, Cr.P.C., but by the impugned order dated 28-11-88 the learned special Judge, rejected the application and while proceeding with the case, examined prosecution witness Sobaransingh.2. Shri R.P. Goyaner, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant only for seeking adjournment, but he was asked by the Court to cross-examine the witness Sobaransingh. As the counsel Shri Goyaner was not pre...
Progressive Industrial Enterprises Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1989MP177; 1989MPLJ360; MANU/MP/0037/1989
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the auction-purchaser against the order of the Tenth Additional Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Indore dt. 1-3-1988 passed in Civil Execution Case No. 14 of 76, whereby the sale of the property which was confirmed has been declared as a nullity and the same has been ordered to be resold. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the non-application No. 1 decree-holder Bank of Baroda obtained a decree against non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In execution of the decree for realisation of an amount of Rs. 61,008.22 p. the immovable property of the judgment-debtors was put to auction on 24th April, 82. The final bid was struck down at Rs. 62,000/- which was accepted in favour of the applicant auction-purchaser. The auction-purchaser deposited Rs. 10,000/- in cash towards l/4th amount of the purchase money and for the balance of Rs. 5,500/- moved an application on the same day that because the Banks are closed h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »