Madhya Pradesh Court August 1991 Judgments
Desha Singh (Deceased by L.R.) and anr. Vs. Madanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP101; 1992(0)MPLJ95
R.K. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 32 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act filed by the L.Rs. of the deceased landlord Deshasingh against the order dated 23-2-1988 passed by the Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Martdsaur, Nee-much in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 119/87, affirming the order of the Rent Controlling Authority dated 3-11-87 passed in case No. 1-A/90 (1) 83-84, whereby the objection of the appellants-landlord that the provisions regarding rent contained in Chapter II of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were inapplicable to the accommodation in question has been overruled and the proceeding in the application of the respondent-tenant to fix standard rent have been maintained.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: --The respondent-tenant filed an application on 3-10-1984 before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of standard rent under Section 10 of the Act in re...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prema Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ75; (1999)IIILLJ506MP
T.N. Singh, J.1. Heard counsel. Review is prayed of the order dated March 25, 1991 passed by me in Misc. Appeal No. 118 of 1987. However, the review being obviously a discretional jurisdiction, I thought it proper and legitimate to examine the grounds of review in juxtaposition with the order and also reminded myself of the settled law that review jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised as per Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India. (1981-II-LLJ-405) (SC). Only where there is a case of substantial injustice occurring on account of the relevant order or law is applied perversely to reach a perverse conclusion and result, review is allowed.2. What I found reading the review petition is that award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum only has been challenged. It is true that interest was awarded at the rate of 12 per bent per annum and it is equally true that claim was preferred under the Workmen's Compensation Act and decided as well under that Act. On facts too i find tha...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Vs. Jayanti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC266
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge. West Nimar, Barwani reversing the order passed by the trial Magistrate in a case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife of the applicant,2. Shri B.A. Nigam, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal and improper. According to him the trial Court had rightly decided the application and there was no need for the revisional Court to set aside the order and grant interim maintenance. Shri B.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order.3. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Court as well as by the trial Court and have also gone through the certified copies of the pleadings filed by the applicant. The question of necessity to grant interim maintenance is essentially a question to be decided on a prima facie ...
Tag this Judgment!Kacharmal Kishanlal Mahajan and anr. Vs. Chainram Kishanlal Mahajan an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ986; 1992(0)MPLJ85
ORDERR.K. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the of fending bus No. MPU 5006 against the Award dated 29-1-1982 passed in Claim Case No. 7 of 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby the claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 3,622.20 ps. as compensation.2. The claimant-respondent Chenram filed the instant claim petition for compensation amounting to Rs. 17,324.05 ps. before the Claims Tribunal, against his brother Kacharmal owner of the bus bearing registration No. MPU 5006 and its driver and the Insurance Co. which had insured Kacharmal against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the said bus in a public place, on the ground that the driver had reversed the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the claimant's bus causing damage to that bus. The claimant alleged that as a resul...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Jagannath Prasad S/O Bhaulal Soni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ250
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by dismissal of its suit on the ground of limitation, the plaintiff Bank has preferred this First Appeal before this Court.2. It was not disputed that on 12-12-1973 the respondent No. 1 took a loan of Rs. 11,300/- from the appellant for purchase of a tempo and that the other two respondents stood guarantors for repayment of loan. It was alleged that the loan was repayable with interest at the rate of 5 per cent above the Reserve Bank rate, with a minimum of 12 per cent per annum, in 30 equal monthly instalments commencing from 10-1-1974. As the loan was not repaid, a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,479.73 P. was filed on 23-12-1977 against the respondents. The suit was resisted and dismissed on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this first appeal.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below are not sustainable in law and that the appellant is en...
Tag this Judgment!Karcharmal and anr. Vs. Chenram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC592
ORDERR.K. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the offending bus No. MPU 5006 against the Award dated 29.1.1982 passed in Claim Case No. 7 of 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby the claimants has been awarded an amount of Rs. 3,622.20 ps. as compensation.2. The claimants-respondent chenram filed the instant Claim petition for compensation, amounting to Rs. 17, 324.05ps. Before the Claims Tribunal, against his brother kacharmal owner of the bus hearing registration No. MPU 5006 and its driver and the Insurance Co. which had insured Kacharmal against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the laid bus in a public place, on the ground that the driver had reversed the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the claimants's bus causing damage to that bus. The claimants alleged that as a r...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Baghel Vs. Dr. B.B. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC72
V.S. Kokja, J.1. This is an application filed by the wife and daughter of the non-applicant against him challenging the rejection of their application for interim maintenance by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. The learned Magistrate has held that there is no case for interim maintenance and rejected their application.2. Shri S.A. Mev, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate did not appreciate the material placed before her for grant of maintenance. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the non-applicant had offered to take into his custody the daughter, who is five years of age and was also willing to take back his wife to his home.3. I have heard the learned Counsel and have also perused the record. The application was for interim maintenance and was made on the ground that the applicant No. 1 had no independent source of income to maintain herself and applicant No. 2 her daughter. It was also alleged that the...
Tag this Judgment!Nathibai D/O Teja Patel Vs. Bhura Alias Atal Bihari S/O Ramsudarshan a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ952
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision petition is against the order dated 17-7-1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna, in S.T. No. 70/89 acquitting the non-applicant No. 1 because of the non-attendance of the remaining prosecution witnesses.2. The brief facts are that the police of police station, Devendranagar filed a challan against the non-applicant No. 1 on the basis of complaint lodged by the applicant Under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. The trial programme was submitted by the prosecution. The trial was fixed for prosecution evidence on 7-3-1989 to 9:3-1989. On 7-3-1989 since the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the trial was adjourned to 2-5-1989 to 4-5-1989. On 2-5-1989 because of non-issuance of summons the trial was again adjourned and fixed for 22-6-1989, 23-6-1989 and 24-6-1989. On 22-6-1989 prosecurix Nathibai was examined. On 23-6-1989 the prosecution witnesses Ku. Anil, Sahodrabai, Sheopratap Singh Constable, Harilal and one Gopal Prasad were examin...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Nath Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ159
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J.1. The present revision-petition is against the order 6-4-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, in Criminal Case No. 688/1990, whereby the application of the applicant for releasing his truck on Supurtgi was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction.2. The truck in question was seized by the Forest Department on 8-12-1990 on account of carrying about 35 stones, which, according to the prosecution is a forest produce. But anyhow, the applicant was able to take away his truck from the custody of the forest Department. Therefore, on 8-12-1990, the Forest Department lodged a report in the police station, Raisen to this effect, which is Annexure-A-1. On this the police registered a case under Sections 353 and 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.3. In this case, the applicant, along with other co-accused, was bailed out on 23-12-1990 but according to the applicant, on receiving oral requisition of the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Girjaprasad Dhaniram Choube and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ365
S.K. Chawla, J.1. The appellants numbering eight have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Prem Singh in prosecution of their common object and also under Section 148/147, Indian Penal Code for rioting and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the first offence and to R. I. for 1 year for the second offence by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh by judgment dated 1-12-1987. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The prosecution story briefly stated was that on 21-11-1986 at about 7.15 p.m. deceased Prem Singh was taking tea outside the hotel of one Baddan in a market place (referred to as Bajariya) of the town of Hindoriya, P.S. Hindoriya, district Damoh. All the eight appellants came in a body at that time and surrounded the deceased. Some time earlier appellant No. 7 Ganga Prasad had come to verify about the presence of deceased Prem Singh and had returned back only ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »