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.
Yogendranath Monge (Dr.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ65
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Dr. (Smt.) Satyawati Monge, the wife of the petitioner, was in the service of the State Government of M.P. as Professor of Pathology in Gajra Raja Medical College at Gwalior at the time of her death on 14-12-1986. She expired before reaching superannuation which had to fall on 1-9-1987. She had nominated the petitioner as the person entitled to receive all amounts due to her in the event of her death. It is pleaded that the amount was payable by the respondents within 15 days from the date of retirement or death as the case may be and as such, the respondents were under obligation to pay the amount by 1-1-1987. It is averred that a part amount was paid on 6-2-1988 and the remaining amount was paid on 25-2-1988 without interest. The petitioner, as nominee of the aforesaid deceased Government servant, has claimed inte...
Sanjay Mishra Vs. Miss Eveline Jobe
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP54
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 31-7-91 passed by the 10th Addl. District Judge, Indore, in civil suit No. 19-A/90, dismissing plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration that no marriage had taken place between him and respondent Miss Eveline Jobe and the marriage certificate (Ex.P. 1) dated 1-3-86 issued by the Marriage Officer, Calcutta and 24 Parganas, was null and void.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant born on 2-3-63 is a Hindu by religion. His parents are also Hindus by religion. At the time of alleged marriage he had completed 23 years; while the defendant-respondent who is Christian by religion was about 30 years of age in the year 1985-86. Her parents are also Christian by birth. It is the appellant's case that sometime in the month of March, 1986 the defendant-respondent started distributing photo-copies of marriage certificate (Ex.P. 1) amongst friends and also filed complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistr...
Muriyal Almeda Vs. Laren Almeda
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC467
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The decree of divorce granted in favour of the applicant-wife by the Trial Court in proceedings under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on 9th April, ly92 has come before this Court for confirmation under Section 17 of the said Act.2. The wife claimed divorce on the alleged ground that the non-applicant-husband is leading an adulterous life with another wife by name Vijaya. The non-applicant-husband opposed the petition filed by the wife by filing reply in the Trial Court; but absented on the date of evidence and did not enter the witness box. The wife who examined herself in the Trial Court, stated that after her marriage with the non-applicant, she discovered that he had already kept another woman in the house and had a child from that woman. Her testimony is supported by P.W. 2 Smt. Anna Kutti Thomas. The learned Judge of the Trial Court believed the testimony of the wife and the witness supporting her to hold that the alleged ground of husband bein...
Onkarlal Garg and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ352
T.N. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel.There is a cross-objection but the appeal in my view is hopeless and there is no need, therefore, to pronounce on the cross-objection.2. Respondent-cross-objector is the insurer, who had made a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- when order was passed for interim compensation. After final order is passed disposing of the claim petition this appeal is preferred and respondent insurer complains that although care is taken by the Tribunal to order refund of the amount deposited by it, interest has not been awarded on that amount.3. Insofar as the appeal is concerned the only contention pressed by Mr. Raju Sharma is that the policy of insurance was a comprehensive one and, therefore, it did not matter even if the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. However, that contention is wholly meritless because policy of insurance specifically limited the use of the tractor for agricultural purpose. It was not meant to carry any passenger. Rightly, therefore, the appellant owner ...
Surajbali Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1992
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT74(MP)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari son of Ramadhar Tiwari resident of Shahdol, was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 9A of the Opium Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Cr. Case No. 630/84 decided on 26-9-1987, and against this conviction and sentence applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Shahdol. In Cr. Appeal No. 50/87 decided on 1-10-1988 the conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused were maintained and the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Cr. Appeal No. 50/87, decided on 1-10-1988 this revision has been preferred on behalf of applicant/appellant Surajbali Tiwari.2. According to the prosecution, applicant/accused Surajbali Tiwari was found in illegal possession of about 10 gm. of opium on 10-6-1984 at Shahdol and the same was seized from him i...
Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC9
ORDER2.11.19921. Heard Shri S.L. Bagdi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.G. Neema, learned standing Counsel for the Union of India.2. Shri Bagdi submits that in view of the decision of the CEGAT, West Regional Bench, Bombay in Collector of C. Ex v. Weldekar Laminates Pvt. Ltd., reported in decided on 19.2.90, the show cause notice has to be discharged. Shri Neema does not dispute that the point raised in the show cause notice has been finally decided against the department by the aforesaid judgment but Shri Neema submits for this reason the petition be not entertained, because in the normal process the decision being binding on the Authority issuing the show cause notice, the Authority itself has to follow the decision and, therefore, the petition be not entertained.3. In our view as the point raised in the show cause notice has already been decided against the Department by the Tribunal, it would be futile to ask the petitioner to go back to the Authority issuing show cau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›