Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ratansingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1219; AIR1993MP197; 1993(0)MPLJ215
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petition Nos. 896/ 1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Katori), 897 of 1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila, Javitri), 898/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udhalsingh); 899/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chotu); 900/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Veermati); 901/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kiran); 902/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sudamabai), 905/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Meena); 906/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Rajabeti); 907/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangaliya) and 908/1992 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mayadevi). 2. All the aforesaid petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the interim award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, the 'Act') by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena (for short, the Trib...
Shri Krishan Das Agrawal Vs. Kanhaiyalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ168
K.K. Verma, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree dated 9-4-1974 of the District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/1967, by which the decree for pre-emption dated 31-7-1967 of the First Civil Judge, Gwalior, in C.S. No. 261 -A/1961 was reversed.2. Qanoon Haqshafa (Riyasat Gwalior), Samvat 1992, which came into force on 5th July 1936, was repealed by the M. P. Legislature by the Act No. XIV of 1968, it contained no other provision whatsoever. It was published in the Government Gazette on 28-6-1968 when the vendee's appeal was pending before the District Judge.3. The suit house is to the east of the appellant's house at Lashkar in the city of Gwalior. The owners of the suit house, Ramchandra and Ors., sold the suit house to the respondent under a sale-deed dated 5-12-1960 (Ex.P-1) registered on 10-12-1960. The sale-deed recited that the sale was in consideration of Rs. 8,000/-.4. The suit, which was filed against the vendee on 5-12-1961, was based on the following averme...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1100
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Misc. Appeal Nos. 152 of 1987 and 175 of 1987. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 1.7.1987 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 66 of 1983, whereby the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e., the father and mother of deceased Dinesh) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 12.9.1983 till date of payment, with a further direction that the insurance company, appellant here, shall be jointly and severally liable to make payment along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that motor bus No. MPB 8755 is owned by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 was working as driver at the time of accident. The accident took place on 21.7.1982. The deceased Dinesh aged about 18 years was travelling in the same bus, who got injured and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the p...
Heera Tripathi Vs. Nageshwar Prasad Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC115
S.K. Seth, J.1. It is not in dispute that the defendant-applicant is the legally married wife of the plaintiff-non-applicant. It appears that they bad been married several years back at Jabalpur and had three children aged between 11 to 20 years. It further appears that in the year 1990 the plaintiff-non-applicant filed a suit (C.S. No. 17-A of 1990) for obtaining a decree for divorce against the defendant-applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Satna.2. In the present application, made by the defendant-applicant under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been prayed by the defendant-applicant that for the reasons spelt out in the application, the abovesaid civil suit filed by the plaintiff-non-applicant against her in the Satna Court be withdrawn from the said Court and be transferred for further trial and disposal to any Court at Jabalpur competent to try and dispose of the same.3. The substance of the r...
Keshav Niwas Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ181
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. The law has to be made clear in regard to the holding of often cited decision of this Court in Brij Kishore Sharma's case, 1988 MPLJ 363 = 1988 JLJ 137 = 1988 MPRCJ (HC) 162. That we are required to do because reliance is placed by Shri K. N. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, on the decision of this Court rendered on 164-1992 in Misc. Petition No. 2819 of 1990, Smt. Madhu Vaish, to which one of us (Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.) was a party. Otherwise, on a short point the petition could be disposed of on its limited scope, judicially confined under the orders passed earlier in this matter.2. At one stage, before this Court, on 12-3-1992, the contention pressed was of hostile discrimination vis-a-vis one K. K. Thakuriya. That order was passed by Division Bench of which one of us (Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.) was a member. To consider obviously that contention time was granted to respondent-State to file additional return and that has today come before us. We heard this ...
Munshi Khan Vs. Mayadevi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP98; 1993(0)MPLJ933
T.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal came up for hearing before R. C. Lahoti, J., who found an apparent conflict between the view taken in three decisions rendered by learned single Judges of this Court on the question mooted in the appeal. The matter, thereafter, came up before a Division Bench of which he was also a member. However, he found unable to persuade himself to agree with the Presiding Judge (S. K. Dubey, J.) and as a result of difference of opinion between them, the controversy is to be finally resolved by me.2. This is defendant's second appeal. Two courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent for his eviction on the 'ground' contemplated under Section I2(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, 'Act'. The plaintiff's case was that she had purchased the suit premises on 18-9-1972 from one Noor Beg but she did not get vacant possession as the defendant was occupying the same as Noor Beg's tenant. After her purchase, for defendant's eviction, she i...
Praveen Malpani Vs. M. D'Costa w/o Francis D'Costa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ669
ORDERP.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. The petitioner boastful of his affluence and illustrious ancestry in case No. 487/90 initiated by him under section Criminal Procedure Code gave the following statement on oath on 9-8-1990 :^^eSus Jhefr ,e- ,l- Mh- dks'Vk ls Cykd ua-33 IykV ua- 5@8 {ks=Qy 17250 o- Qq- dk lkSnk fd;k Fkk 31 ekpZ 1989 dks eSaus :-50]000@& mls c;kus ds rkSj ij fn;s FksA rhu fd'rks esa jkf'k nh FkhA ;g [kkrkcgh esa ntZ gSA 28@3 dks chl gtkj] 29@3 dks nl gtkj ,oa 30@3 dks nl gtkj rFkk31@3 dks nl gtkj fn;s FksA fookfnr lEifk dk lkSnk 4 yk[k esa fn;s FksA vizsydks lsyMhM gksuk FkkA 31@3 dks dCtk fn;k x;k Fkk gesa vkSj ml ij fLFkr Hkou vkfnij gekjs rkys Mky fn;s x;s FksA;g lkSnk ckypan nyky us r; djk;k FkkA izn'kZ&ih;&1[kkrk cgh gS ftldh QksVks dkih izn'kZ&ih;&1 v gS**AOn the basis of the above statement, an ex parte order was passed in applicant's favour. Afterwards when the respondent came to know of the ex parte order, she filed a civil suit No. 12A/91 in the Court of District Judge...
Gajraj Singh and ors. Vs. Ramkumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: AIR1992MP316; 1993(0)MPLJ52
S.K. Dubey, J.1. Petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, have presented this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order (Annexure P/2), dated 28-8-1981, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1981, by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Vidisha, camp Basoda, whereby the petitioners have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2, over the suit land.2. The material facts leading to this petition are thus the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/ plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in relation to the land situated at survey No.51/1, area 3.547 hectares, in village Jafrabad Pipariya, Tehsil Basoda. The plaintiffs by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, prayed foran order of grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court having not been satisfied on the material, did not pass an ex parte temporary injunction but directed issue of noti...
Pavan Madhushala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ29
1. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, directing his suit for declaration of title and issuance of a permanent preventive injunction to be dismissed.2. The suit property consists of land survey No. 11, 12, 13 and 14 total area 8 Bighas 16 Biswas situated at village Reenzha, Tahsil Sheopur-Kalan. The defendant/respondents are the Bhumiswamis of the land.3. On 31-1-1979 the plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he had been in possession of the suit land for a period of last 15 years, continuously, openly and as an owner and hence he had acquired the title in the suit property by adverse possession. As the defendants intended to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff, the suit had to be filed.4. The defendants on being noticed filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff on all counts and conceding that they had no objection to the plaintiff being declared a Bhumiswami of the suit land.5. The defendants...
Purshottum Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ71
ORDERT.N. Singh, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the life sentence passed on 11-7-1988 by the General Court Martial which assembled at Gwalior on 24-5-1986 is challenged by the convict who was tried for committing the civil offence of murder contrary to Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He is also dismissed from service. After pronouncing the sentence, 'recommendation to mercy' was pari passu made -- 'the accused may not be made to undergo the full term of the sentence'. The confirmation of sentence by G.O.C., 36 Infantry Division (Respondent No. 3) is also challenged.2. A chequered career this petition has had in this Court and about that, few words we must say. Hearing was piecemeal, on different dates, on and from 7-1-1992. It concluded on 21-2-1992 when Order was reserved. In the course of preparation of the Judgment, we faced some difficulty in dealing with the main contention based on Section 79, Indian Penal Code. We found materials available to us insufficient to deal with the plea ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »