Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Mohd. Sabir Vs. Sahajibai W/O Sukaji and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: II(1993)ACC717; 1993ACJ558; AIR1993MP88; 1993(0)MPLJ186
K.L. Issrani, J. 1. The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 26-4-1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat, in Claim Case No. 14/89, by which the original owner of the Luna Moped involved in the accident has been ordered to be implicated.2. In this case, the non-applicants are absent in spite of service and S.P.C. issued to them.3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accident took place on 1-2-1989. The claim petition was filed on 21-7-1989. The written statement was filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. Malajkhand (the original non-applicant No. 2 in the claim case) on 3-11-1989, in which it was stated that Abdul Aziz (the original non-applicant No. 1) was not the owner of the vehicle. Argument in this case were heard on 15-1-1991 but the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. was filed only on 22-1-1991, that is beyond the period prescribed under Section 110A of the Motor V...
Kalusingh Chander Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ560
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The convict-appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28-8-1991 rendered by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 56/90 whereby they were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.2. Adumberated in brief the prosecution case at the trial was that on 29-9-1989, Shersingh (PW 3) had gone out for latrine at about 6.00 A.M. when he was near the KHALA the appellants Bhagwansingh, Tufan Singh and Kalusingh all sons of Chander Singh armed with stick, axe and GETI (Shovel) assaulting the deceased Terusingh alias Tejsingh. PW 3 informed his elder brother Rajendra Singh (PW 1) who immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. The injured Terusingh alias Tejsingh was put in a tractor and taken to the hospital at Dewas for the purpose of treatment, but he ...
Allen Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ247
ORDERS.D. Jha, J.1. The Question arising for consideration in this Misc. Cri. Case and other similar Misc. Cri. Cases Nos. 888/92, Mis. Rajdhani Distillers v. M. P. State and 2428/92, Gajendra Kumar Sharma v. M. P. State, at this stage is whether prohibition under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'Code') as to entertaining second revision application by this Court at the instance of the person, who had made application to Sessions Judge, prevents this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code even when requisite conditions for exercise of such power as stipulated in three Judge Bench in Madhu Limaye v. State of Bihar, 1978 Cr. LJ. 165 (SC) are fulfilled.2. The question arises in view of recent decision of the Supreme Cout in Rajkumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Suppl) SCC 192, inter alia holding that merely by saying that jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power...
K.D. Vaishya Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ69MP; 1993(0)MPLJ459
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Bombay, whereby it declined to entertain the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter addressed as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner's claim is for payment of his withheld increments for the period from April 1, 1964 to Janaury 17, 1982. He was superannuated on January 17, 1982 by the respondent-Bank. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the increments under para 85 of the Shastri Award and also under Bipartite Settlement arrived at between the representatives of employees and that of the Banks, including respondent No. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his increments. The Shastri Award provided that increments should normally be givenand stoppage of increments by Management should only be by way of punishment for the p...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Praveer Kumar Bhatnagar an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ579
T.N. Singh, J. 1. This is owner's appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, 'the M.V. Act'), against an award of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- made in favour of claimant-respondent for the injury he suffered in a motor accident on 13.1.1983.2. The only question forcefully agitated in this appeal by Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is want of jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), to pass the award and to press that contention he has relied on Section 53, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (for short, 'E.S.I. Act'), which is as follows:53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.--An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law...
State of M.P. Vs. Sajjanbai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC464
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-11-1989 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhar passed in Criminal Case No. 860/88 whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A of the I.P.C.2. The brief history of the case is that Police Sagor filed the challan against the accused-respondents on 5-12-87 with the allegations that the accused-respondents have committed cruelty on Sitabai who is wife of respondent Banesingh for bringing dowry from her parent's house. The charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. was framed.3. Accused-respondents abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated.4. After trial learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence this appeal.5. In the memo of appeal and during the course of arguments it has been submitted that the fact of causing injuries to Sitabai (wife) has been proved and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted. As against it...
ishwar Vs. Ramkanyabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC602
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.2.92 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dewas in Criminal Revision No. 37/91, whereby the petitioner's revision against the grant of maintenance to his wife (respondent here) has been dismissed;2. Brief story of the case is that the respondent filed an application before the Trial Court that she is unable to maintain herself and the non-applicant (petitioner here) refused to maintain her. It appears that during the pendency of the maintenance application, this petitioner performed a second marriage. This fact was taken into consideration on an application made by the wife-respondent. The revision against the said order was filed by the petitioner, that too has been dismissed as referred above. Hence, this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is a bar of Second Revision, and the bar of Second Revision cannot be circumvented by filing a petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the grant of mainte...
Shantilal Vs. Rajubai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC622
R.D. Shukia, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-88 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar camp at Sardarpur passed in Cr. Rev. 107/87 whereby while reversing the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sardarpur passed in M.Cr.C. 23/85 dated 10.8.87 the non-applicant wife has been granted maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month from 30th Sept., 1988 i.e. from the date of the order of Revisional Court.2. The brief history of the case is that non-applicant wife Rajubai filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate referred to above with the contention that she is married wife of Shantilal, applicant here, that he has kept one Bagdibai as his second wife. She is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, a maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month be granted to her.Applicant husband denied the claim and contended that Rajubai herself has deserted him and she refused to go to her husband in the Caste Panchayat.3. The parties belo...
Naraindas (Since Deceased) by Lrs. Vs. Bhagwandas (Since Deceased) by ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ1005
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the Judgment and decree which set aside the ex parte decree dated 29-3-1976, for eviction, as obtained by fraud, passed in civil suit No. 121-A/76 by Civil Judge Class-II, Lahar.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are thus : Landlord Naraindas and his son Balkrishan instituted a civil suit against the respondent/tenant for ejectment and arrears of rent of Rs. 600/- and mesne profits alleging therein that the respondent is a tenant in the suit accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, who has defaulted in making payment of rent due in spite of notice of demand and has not handed over the possession of the accommodation after the termination of the tenancy. The Court ordered to issue summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A/D post (R.A.D.) specifying the date of appearance as 19-9-1972. The summons (Ext. P-3) without the seal of the Court and a copy of the plaint was issued on 12-9-1972 for sending it by ...
State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Gyasiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP155; 1993(0)MPLJ503
S.M. Dubey, J.1. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh has raised a question for decision whether a suit, where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under Section 57(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the 'Code') is cognizable by civil Court in view of Section 57(2) of the Code, which vests jurisdiction in Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding such dispute.2. Material facts leading to this petition are thus :The respondents Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed a suit averring therein that the plaintiffs are in settled possession since last 65 years as owner and have perfected their title by adverse possession over agricultural land, situated at Survey No. 565, area 14 biswas, in village Jouri, Tehsil and District Morena. It is only on 30th May, 1989 the plaintiffs came to know that in revenue records, the State is recorded as owner of the land, this entry is against the rights ...