Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gyanshyam Das Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR821]; (1994)IIILLJ507MP
V.D. Gyani, J.1 This is an appeal against acquittal. The accused respondent was convicted by the trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore) under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to undergo one year's simple imprisonment. On appeal, the then Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, set aside conviction and acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges. The Corporation has now come in appeal against acquittal.2. Sri Behl learned counsel for the appellant urged that the lower appellate Court erred in not considering the fact that sanction order was very much on record and the accused could not have been acquitted on that ground. Going through the impugned order, it is clear that this was the ground which mainly weighed with the learned Judge, in acquitting the accused. The other reason for acquittal assigned by the learned Judge is that the prosecution led no evidence to prove that the accused was the managin...
Ankariya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ751
S.D. Jha, J.1. Appellant Ankariya S/o Hardi challenges his conviction Under Section 376/ 511 I.P.C. and sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by Additional Judge Camp Barwani of the Court of Session Judge, Mandleshwar by his judgment dated 9-4-1986.2. The case for prosecution is that appellant (hereinafter called 'the accused') was stranger to prosecutrix Phoolbai (P.W. 3). In the night of incident on 25-6-1985 the accused went to Renja's house and represented that he is a surpunch of village 'Aamjhiri Gumadia' and his name is Ankaria. He was afraid as it was dark, he requested Renja to allow him to sleep in his house that night. Renja acceded to his request gave him food and piece of cloth to lie on. The three accused, Phoolbai (P.W. 3) and her husband Renja (P.W. 4) slept in the same room 'Tapra'. At about 11-00 p.m. in the night, Phoolbai (P.W. 3) was awakened and she found the cord of her petiticoat loosened and the accused trying to sit on her waist. She push...
Shri Ramjanki Mandir Trust and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP41
T.N. Singh, J. 1. On 15-1-1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ater, in District Bhind, passed an order (Annexure A/3) constituting a trust in respect of 'Shri Ram-janki Mandir' and also appointed 'Trustees', evidently exercising his powers under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act'. By subsequent order passed on 3-7-1986 (Annexure A/9), he made changes in the Register in respect of entries concerning the names of Trustees earlier appointed. His subsequent action and the order passed by him in exercise of his powers under Section 9 of the Act are challenged on the Writ side before us. 2. What appears clear on the face of Annexure A/3 is that steps to constitute the Trust were taken by the S.D.O. in pursuance of the direction made in that regard by Collector, Bhind, in his order passed on 11-4-1983 in Revenue Appeal No. 13/81-82. That order is also on record. That is Annexure R/1 of return of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. They are, State of Madhya Pradesh through the...
Ramibai and anr. Vs. Ramkumari Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP211; 1989MPLJ789
ORDERR.K. Verma, J.1. This is a revision filed by the legal representatives of the objector Surju-prasad against the order dated 4-11-87 passed in probate Case No. 1/87 by the District Judge, Indore whereby the learned District Judge has granted time to the non-applicant Ramkumaribai to bring the legal representatives of deceased objector Surjuprasad onrecord without deciding the question of abatement.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows :---The non-applicant Ramkumaribai alleging a will dated 1-12-68 executed in her favour by the father of the objector Surjuprasad, applied for probate (Probate Case No. 6/70) in the court of Additional District Judge, Indore without impleading Surjuprasad as a party-non-applicant and obtained probate of the said will. When the non-applicant Ramkumaribai filed Civil Suit No. 41/70 for possession of the property on the basis of the probate, obtained as aforesaid, Surjuprasad came to have knowledge about the e...
Pradesh Mining Corporation Vs. Munde Kol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC127; 1991ACJ486
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 31.3.1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thehdol, in Case No. 20 of 1979 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,528/-as compensation for employment injury suffered by the respondent on 24.8.1977.2. The respondent in his application filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Thehdol claimed that he was employed as a workman with the appellant on a monthly wage of Rs. 150/-. It was his case that on 24.8.1977 at about 11 hours while at work, he suffered injury because of a fall of earth on him and became unfit for employment. The appellant in its written statement admitted that the respondent was a workman employed by it but denied that on 24.8.1977, he was in employment or suffered any injury during the course of employment. Its case was that on 24.8.1977, the respondent remained absent and therefo...
Maya Gohiya W/O Prem Lal Gohiya Vs. Prem Lal Mangal Singh Gohiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ362
ORDERB.M. Lal, J.1. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 14-8-1986 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 74-A of 1984.2. The revisionist/wife Smt. Maya Gohiya has brought an action against her husband Premlal under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'Act') for seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty etc. It is contended that her husband Premlal is not capable of performing sexual act with his wife Smt. Maya Bai and as such incapability of performing sexual act amounts to cruelty on the part of her husband Premlal.3. The husband, denying the averments as levelled against him, submitted that he is fully capable of performing sexual act with his wife. However, the wife filed an interlocutory application seeking medical examination of her husband about his potency. This application by the impugned order dated 14-8-1986 has been dismissed...
Vimla Pradhan and ors. Vs. United Commercial Bank and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ819
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15th April, 1985 passed by Shri K. K. Saxena, IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 11-B of 1978, holding the appellants responsible, jointly and severally with Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, to the sum of Rs. 14,084.56 p. together with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum.2. Facts of this case are more or less settled. It is no longer in dispute that Respondent No. 2 Sharad Kumar Thawait borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,300/- from the respondent Bank for purchasing a Matador pick-up van which was granted to him. The original defendant Bhaskar Prasad whom the appellant now represents, had guaranteed the aforesaid loan by executing document of guarantee dt. 5-3-1974 (Ex. P-3). From this document it appears that the guarantee was continuing guarantee and was to terminate only with the liability of the bor...
Leelawati Mishra and ors. Vs. President, Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ28
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. One of us, sitting singly, having referred the matter to a Larger Bench, we are required to deal with and decide the controversy indicated below with reference to the question of law framed for the consideration of the Larger Bench.2. During pendency of proceeding in this Court, the revisionist, Bhagwandas Mishra, died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The question raised for decision is, whether Municipal Council, Mungavali, has rightly levied, property tax for three houses, as folios, on the owner, late Bhagwandas Mishra, for the year 1977-78, by order passed on 25-12-1980:S. No. Ward No. House No. Annual Letting Property TaxValue1. 1 9-A Rs. 846/- Rs. 50.802. 2 26 Rs. 289/- Rs. 17.353. 2 7 Rs. 1980/- Rs. 118/-3. An appeal, as provided under M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, for short the 'Act', was taken challenging the levy. That was heard and decided on 10-2-1981 by Civil Judge, Class II, Mungavali. In the appeal, it was contended that ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.C. Saxena and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ744
T.N. Singh, J. 1. A short and simple, but important question of law has come up for our decision in this matter, indeed, that too on admitted facts.2. A railway accident took place on 16.5.1978 and admittedly, respondent No. 1 was travelling by that train which was involved in that accident. Admittedly also, the compartment in which he was travelling was damaged in the accident and for loss suffered by him on account of his goods being damaged which he was carrying with him in the compartment in which he was travelling, he lodged a claim, as contemplated under the Railways Act. That claim was allowed in toto in the sum of Rs. 31,015/-. However, on that, a lump sum deduction of 25 per cent was made. The dispute, on the other hand, in this petition, raised by the railway authorities is with regard to a single item for which compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been allowed to the claimant-respondent. For two numbers of photometers (AOMIL make) that compensation was allowed.3. The ...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Navalkishor Mangilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ412
T.N. Singh, J.1. On admitted facts, defendant/appellant has raised a short, but important question of law in this second appeal. Decrees passed by two Courts below, it is contended, suffer jurisdictional incompetence and must be set aside on that account.2. In the opening paragraph of its judgment, the lower appellate Court has focussed on the crux of the controversy. The four-fold entitlement of the plaintiffs accepted by the trial Court in passing decree in that regard is set out. In title suit No. 78/81 which plaintiffs had instituted for defendant's eviction from the suit-house, a preliminary decree was passed on 9-4-1965 directing, inter alia, that defendant should hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs latest by 8-7-1965 and that on possession being so delivered to the plaintiffs, they would be entitled to pray for mesne profits on paying court-fees in that regard and obtain decree for that on enquiry into their claim in that regard being completed.2-A. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »