Madhya Pradesh Court August 1991 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.
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Dhulia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ519
V.D. Gyani and V.S. Kokje, JJ.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against award dated 31.7.1988 passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 36 of 1988 awarding Rs. 61.500/- as against claim of Rs. 1,80.000/- to the claimant-respondent.2. The insurer has joined the owners as appellant probably with a view to widen the scope of interference, otherwise taking each of the grounds, as urged and enumerated in the appeal memo, are not available to the insurer.3. These grounds are: (a) lack of medical evidence, (b) 50 per cent disability on account of loss of memory, not proved, (c) claimant-respondent was smelling of alcohol at the time of his medical examination, and should, therefore, be held responsible for the accident, (d) agricultural income of Rs. 300/- and daily wages of Rs. 15/- not proved.4. None of these grounds is available to the insurance company as a ground of attack permissible under the law, Section 96 (2), ...
State of M.P. Vs. Barilal @ Munna Badai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1238MP; 1992(0)MPLJ941
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/State of Madhya Pradesh, has challenged the award (Annexure P/1), dated April 23, 1988, in Case No. 35 of 1986 Industrial Disputes Act (Ref.), by Labour Court 1, Gwalior, whereby the order, dated June 16, 1982, of termination of the services of respondent-1 was declared non-est, because of non-compliance of i Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), and respondent-1 was ordered to be reinstated from the date of his termination, with half back-wages.2. Sri S.B. Mishra, learned Government Advocate, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Ors. v. Basant Kumar Pandey 1991-I-LLJ-323, which relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee AIR 1980 SC 840 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Guna Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sompra...
Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Baingana Project, Seoni Vs. Laxminaray ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP140; 1991(0)MPLJ887
B.C. Varma, J.1. This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award made by the District Court. What court-fee on the memorandum of appeal and on the cross-objection is payable is the question. According to the appellant, the court-fee payable is as prescribed under Article 11, Schedule II of the Court-fees Act and not ad-valorem. To support this contention, the appellant relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shantilal v. Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam, AIR 1978 M.P. 8., which in turn draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Diwan Brothers v Central Bank of India, AIR 1976 SC 1503. With this view of the Full Bench we are bound. The learned Deputy Advocate General, however, referred to this Court a later decision of the Supreme Court in C. G. Ghanshamdas v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1987 SC 180, and contended that a decision by the Court is an order and not a decree and, therefore, ad-va!orcm court-fee is payable on the amount of th...
Bhagwan and ors. Vs. Sachi Chandra JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP258
T.N. Singh, J. Yesterday Shri Lokendra Gupta was not before me. He is in this appeal respondent No. 2 and today he has argued his own case. Yesterday I heard Shri R. D. Jain, appearing for respondent No. 1, who fought valiently a lost cause. It was Yesterday itself that I told him about Gaurishankar, AIR 1927 PC 246, star which shines on Indian Judicial firmament. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not overruled that and has, on the other hand, reinforced that law --embodying a very fundamental principle of Hindu Law. 2. Today Shri J. P. Gupta who apears for the appellants, has tried to improve upon the performance of counsel of the appeal to which reference I had made in yesterday's order. In Vasudco v. Tikaram (F. As. Nos. 25/84 and 8/91 decided on 5-8-1991), as noted yesterday in this matter, I applied Gaurishankar (supra) and ordered retrial of the suit framing a specific issue, heeding the clear, unambiguous and clarion call of Gaurishankar (supra). On factual aspects, this appeal asse...
Kamlesh Vs. Virendra Kumar Uiks
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC67
Faizanuddin, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been directed against the orders dated 25.1.1990 and 12.2.1990, by the applicant, who is the wife of the- non-applicant and contesting the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed against her by her husband, the non-applicant, herein.2. The husbond non-applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Acts) against his wife, the applicant herein, for restitution of conjugal rights. In her written statement, the applicant took the plea that the parties to the proceedings are Gonds Adivasi by casts and belonged to schedule tribe and as such the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are not applicable to them. On these pleadings, it has been averred that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. The applicant wife also made an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant ...
Hariram Lehrumal Sindhi Vs. Anandrao Narayanrao Mukati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP1; 1992(0)MPLJ373
M.W. Deo, J. 1. Anandrao and Gajanandrao were brothers. They owned the suit property. These two brothers mortgaged the suit house by registered mortgage-deed dated 28-4-1947 in favour of Radhakishan for a sum of Rs. 1,500/ -. It was a possessory mortgage. A supplementary mortgage of Rs. 800/- was also made in favour of Radhakishan. Later on there was a partition between the mortgagee Anandrao and Gajanandrao with the resultthat the suit house fell to the share of Anandrao. In the meanwhile the mortgagee Radha-kishan, transferred his rights in favour of Ramgopal.2. The mortgagee, Radhakishan, had let out two rooms on the ground floor of the mortgaged house to the present appellant Hariram as a monthly tenant on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month. We are not concerned with the possession of the other portion of the house.3. Anandrao filed the original suit for redemption as he had deposited the entire money and costs both payable under the mortgage on 3-8-1972. Anandrao also claimed possession...
Shyam Prasad Vs. Mayabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC125
K.M. Pande, J.1. This revision has been preferred againts the order dated 28.4.89 passed by X Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore.2. Brife facts of the case are that a petition Under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending in the Court and on the date of hearing the Court below passed an order of dismissal of the suit treating the plaintiff absent because on that date the plaintiff/applicant was not present when the case was taken up for hearing. The plaintiff/applicant was present and she moved an applicant on for restoration of the dismissal order on the next date alongwith an affidavit that she was present alongwith her Counsel and five witnesses. The fact is that there was strike on that date and she was present all along. She requested the Court for time to call her Counsel. The Court waited for the plaintiff's lawyer till 2.60 P.M. The Court, therefore, directed that the case will be taken up at 2.45 P.M. and oral instructions were given that the parties s...
Narayan S/O Meghraj Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ120
S.K. Chawla, J.1. This is an appeal by an accused challenging his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life inflicted thereunder.2. It was not disputed that on 30-5-1986 at a trijunction of roads called Baram Baba Ka Tigadda, in village Khamria, police-station Kumhari, district Damoh, a quarrel had taken place between deceased Halka and appellant Narayan. The time then was day time around 2.30 P.M. During the course of that quarrel appellant Narayan inflicted a knife blow on the deceased.3. The prosecution case was that on account of previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant stopped the deceased while the latter was at Baram Baba Ka Tigadda and was going to his own house. The appellant also took out a knife and inflicted knife blows on the deceased. One Ganga (P.W.2) tried to intervene but he was pushed and tripped on the ground by the appellant. The appellant then fled away from the scene. Deceased Halka died at ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Additional) Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(MP)82; [1994]205ITR607(MP)
B.C. Varma, J. 1. This court, vide order dated June 30, 1991, passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 796 of 1974, required the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law for determination by this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ? (2) Whether the finding given by the Tribunal could reasonably be arrived at on the basis of material considered by it ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1963-64. The assessee-respondent first showed a loss of Rs. 51,530. He then revised his return and showed profit of Rs. 7,500. He was not maintaining any account books. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, estimated and determined the income at Rs. 51,000. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000...
Kailashnarayan Bhavarlal and ors. Vs. Keshavsingh Harinarayan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ320
M.W. Deo, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal who having succeeded in the trial Court, were nonsuited by the First Appellate Court.2. It is not in dispute that Nathusing was the owner of property situated in village Kanad. Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of a registered will dated 27-2-1933 executed by Nathusingh under which Nathusingh bequeathed some property to Munnalal and one house to Daryaosingh who was son from Mainabai, mistress of Nathusingh. To the south-west of the house bequeathed to Daryaosingh, is a Khandhar which is the subject-matter of this litigation. In this second appeal learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that it is this Khandhar which is adjacent to the house of Daryaosingh in the direction of south-west and is mentioned in the copy of the will which indeed could not be disputed in view of the averment and factual foundation in the last two lines of clause 5 of para 3 of the certified copy. As such there is no dispute about either the description or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »