Madhya Pradesh Court October 1992 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.
Pt. Ramprashad S/O Nandlalji Purohit Vs. the State Transport Appellate ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP92; 1993(0)MPLJ34
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner carries on business of plying of passengers buse Section During the course of his business he had applied for grant of temporary permit on the Rajgarh-Bakani inter State route on which a vacancy for making two single trips daily to be operated by one bus had occurred. Respondent No. 3 had also applied for temporary permit in the same vacancy. The petitioner's application was dated 9-6-1992 and that of the respondent No. 3 was dated 11-6-1992. The applications were heard by the State Transport Authority and were disposed of by a common order dated 26-6-1992, granting temporary permit to respondent No. 3 and rejecting the - application of the petitioner. Against this order an appeal before the S.T.A.T. under Section 89(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed, firstly on the ground that under the New Act grant of permit to rival claimaint could not be challenged in an appeal and secondly that the equi...
State Bank of India Vs. Mathura Prasad Soni and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas824(MP)
1. The appellant-bank has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated October 16, 1982, delivered by Shri Pannalal Rathore, Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Sehore. By virtue of the said judgment the suit filed by the plaintiff-bank was only partially decreed and the remaining claim of the plaintiff-bank was disallowed.2. Mathura Prasad (defendant No. 1) and Prabhulal (defendant No. 2) who are son and father, respectively, obtained a loan of Rs. 62,000 for purchasing a tractor and trolley from the plaintiff-bank. The said tractor and trolley was purchased by the defendent-bank for and on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and possession of the said tractor and trolly was delivered to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 stood surety for repayment of the said loan to the plaintiff-bank. The application for advancing the loan (exhibit P-13), the certificate issued by the co-operative society, Khajuriekela (exhibit P-14), the promissory note (exhibit...
Pt. Ram Prasad Purohit Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC378
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner carries on business of plying of passengers buses. During the course of his business he had applied for grant of temporary permit on the Rajgarh-Bakani inter State route on which a vacancy for making two single trips daily to be operated by one bus had occurred. Respondent No. 3 had also applied for temporary permit in the same vacancy. The petitioner's application was dated 9.6.1992 and that of the respondent No. 3 was dated 11.6.1992. The applications were heard by the State Transport Authority and were disposed of by a common order dated 26.6.1992, granting temporary perm it to respondent No. 3, and rejecting the application of the petitioner. Against this order an appeal before the S.T.A.T. under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed, firstly on the ground that under the. New Act grant of permit to rival claimant could not be challenged in an appeal and secondly that the equity was ...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Amita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: I(1994)DMC211
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 2-5-92 of the Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain, passed in execution proceedings of Case No. 12-A/91, whereby the execution of the decree of restitution of congugal rights in favour of the applicant-husband has been refused.2. The brief history of the case is that the applicant husband obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights vide decree dated 29-1-91, passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/91 he filed an application for execution. It appears that the learned Judge on a query from the Counsel for the Judgment Debtor and believing the statement of the Counsel that Non-applicant-wife is not ready to go alongwith the applicant, dismissed the application.3. In the opinion of this Court that is not the proper procedure of dealing with the execution of decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. provides that if a J.D. has willingly fail to obey the decree, the property of the J.D. ...
Bharatsingh Vs. Harijan Kalyan Vibhag
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ49
ORDERK.K. Varma, J. 1. Applicant by Shri D.R. Sharma, Acvocate. State by Shri D.R. Sihare, Panel Lawyer. They are heard.2. Applicant Bharat Singh Ravat apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 20/91 (P.S. Harijan Kalyan, Gwalior) registered under Sections 341, 376 and 506 (Second Part), Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The other co-accused are Kamal Singh, Munna Singh and Surendra Singh.3. Mathura Bai, wife of Jagram, a member of the Scheduled Tribe (aged 35 years) is the prosecutrix in this case.4. The first point for determination is whether Section 18 of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is bar to the entertainment of this application under Section 438(1), Criminal Procedure Code.5. Section 18 of the Act reads as under : -- '18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence wider the Act. -- Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any...
Kawarlal Limbaji Gari and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ96
ORDERS.D. Jha, J. 1. By this application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code the applicants urge that they are entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code.2. The contention of the applicants is that challan in the case was presented on the 91st day of their being produced for remand before the Judicial Magistrate and the same having not been done within 90 days, they acquired a right to be released on bail and that they are willing to furnish surety as ordered by this Court and, therefore, they be admitted to bail.3. At the hearing, Shri T. R. Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicants submitted that a report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code not having been filed within 90 days of arrest of the applicants, the right acquired by the applicants to be admitted to bail could not be taken away even though challan may have been filed later. He also submitted that mere fact that the accused applicants later on filed appl...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lalji Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ704
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appeal is by the two appellants, the owner of the car and the insurance company in relation to car No. CPC 5666 involved in the accident which took place on 10.10.1980 with scooter No. MPP 9090 of the claimant-respondent No. 1.2. The case of the claimant before the Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation for injury sustained by him due to the fracture of his hip bone, is that the accident took place because of the negligent driving by the driver of the car who was said to have taken a sudden turn resulting in collision of the scooter on which respondent No. 1 was riding and proceeding in the same direction behind the car but at a reasonable distance.3. The appellants being the owner of the car and the insurance company assail the award of the Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, dated 26.7.1984, both on merits as also on the quantum of compensation.4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants on merits submitted that the accident was caused due to the sole neglig...
M.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Meharban Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ234MP; 1993(0)MPLJ131
ORDER1. The controversy raised in this petition is whether an employee, whose services were terminated prior to July 30, 1976, i.e., prior to amendment of Section 62(i) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, the 'Act'), can institute the proceedings even after lapse of period of one year, the period prescribed for commencing the proceedings, without first approaching the Labour Court in the manner prescribed.2. Counsel beard.3. After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that the bar of limitation imposed by M.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1976, does not apply to an employee, whose services were dispensed with prior to the enforcement of the Ordinance and who made an application for reinstatement after the Ordinance came into force, as before the incorporation of the period of limitation, no limitation was prescribed; therefore, the vested right of an employee to approach the Labour Court in the manner provided and during the time prescribed prior to July 30, 1976, cannot be ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seth Gowardhandas S/O Seth Brijmohanda ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP70; 1993(0)MPLJ536
Faizan Uddin, J.1. This appeal has been placed before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice K. M. Agarwal (who is also a member of this Full Bench) and Mr. Justice S. K. Chawla, disagreeing with the view taken by earlier two Division Benches of this Court in First Appeal No. 15 of 1984 (Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni v. Laxminarayan) (AIR 1992 MP 140) and First Appeal No. 35 of 1988 (Smt. Ganabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) with regard to the payment of Court fees on the Memorandum of appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Cross-Objections in such appeals.2. In order to highlight the points in controversy and to answer to the reference, it is necessary to state the material facts in brief which are as follows:The State Government through its Land Acquisition Officer, has acquired 3 acres of land of Survey Number 477 belonging to the claimant/respondent situated in village Udaipura for...
Aditya Ballabh Tripathi and ors. Vs. Shri Krishna Singh Rathore and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ251
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J. 1. Three young lawyers of this Court have filed this petition for initiating contempt of Court proceedings, against an officer occupying the post of Director General of Police and another, a newspaper Editor.2. This is not a motion by 'any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General in terms of Clause (b) of Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is not even stated that Advocate General was approached to give consent. The petition can at best be treated as information to this Court to take suo motu action. If it is information, as it can be nothing else, it was wrong on the part of the lawyers to have styled themselves as petitioners and to show the alleged contemners as non-petitioners. The Supreme Court in P. N. Duda v. P. Shivshankar in (1988) 3 SCC 167 in paragraph 54 of the report has approved of the directions given by Delhi High Court in such matters. The information even though lodged in the form of a petition, inviting t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »