Madhya Pradesh Court April 1993 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.
Ratanlal and anr. Etc. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3723
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. This Judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1992 filed by Ratanlal and Shantabai and Ravindra separately aggrieved by the Judgment, dated, 9-6-1992, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Ujjain in S.T. No. 106 of 1990. Whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the offences under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to 10 years R.I. for committing the offence under Section 304B and 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 306, I.P.C. and failing to pay the fine, sentence of one month's S.I. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. The facts leading to this appeal in short are that the police Jiwajigang submitted a charge-sheet before the competent Magistrate against the present appellants under Section 304B and 306, I.P.C. who committed the case to the court of session. In the sessions court charges under Section 304B and 306, I.P.C. were ...
Pradip Kotkar Vs. Sher Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC130; 1994ACJ1174
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, against ah award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 66 of 1981 on 29.7.1983.2. The matrix in short is that the truck bearing registration No. CPE 9018 is owned by respondent No. 2, Dilip Kumar. This truck at the relevant time was being driven by the respondent No. 1, Sher Singh, as an employee of the owner of this truck. This truck was insured with the respondent No. 4. The Matador bearing registration No. CPB 8901 was owned by respondent No. 3, Khalil Mohammad. This was being driven by one Iqbal Mohammad (since deceased) at the relevant time. On 22.11.1980, this Matador was proceeding from Indore towards Maheshwar while at the same time, the truck noted above was coming towards Indore. These two vehicles collided at about 11.45 a.m. on 22.11.1980 near village Dhamnod about 4 to 6 km. away from Indore. The driver of the Matador, however, died on account of the ...
Surtan and ors. Vs. Kanhaiyalal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC635
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal, filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the Award dated 5.3.1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 1/80. The claimants were granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation. They have come up in this Court for enhancement.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that truck bearing registration No. GTY 3838 is owned by the respondent No. 1. At the relevant time, it was being driven by the respondent No. 2, Shantilal. It was also insured with the respondent No. 3. On 13.10.1979 the respondent No. 2 drove the aforesaid truck rashly and negligently and knocked down Mariya daughter of appellants/claimants, aged 12 years, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The respondents denied their liability and contended their impeccability. The Tribunal, after evaluation of evidence, found that t...
Geeta Rao Vs. Sher Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1993
Reported in: II(1995)ACC412
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 29th July, 1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 67 of 1981.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration No. CPE 9018 was owned by the respondent No. 2 Dilipkumar. At the relevant time, it was being driven by the respondent No. 1. The vehicle was registered with the respondent No. 4, the National Insurance Co., Indore. The matador bearing registration No. CPB 8901 was owned by the respondent No. 3 Khalil Mohd. and at the relevant time, it was being driven by Iqbal Mohd. (since deceased). On 22.11.1980, the matador was proceeding from Indore towards Maheshwar while at about the same time the truck noted above, was coming towards Indore. These vehicles collided on 22.12.1980 at 11.45 a.m. near village, Dhamnod. The driver of the matador died on account of the injuries sustained by him in th...
Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Pappad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1129]; (1994)IILLJ610MP; 1993(0)MPLJ838
ORDERGulab C. Gupta, J. 1. Whether members of the petitioner Society, a body registered and incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, working for wages in its establishment at Jabalpur, are its 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the moot question raised in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for decision of this Court.2. Petitioner is a 'Society' registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also a 'Public Trust' registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act having its head office at Bombay and a branch at Jabalpur. It claims to be working for upliftment of down-trodden ladies, to provide them work and infuse self-sufficiency. The Society's unit at Jabalpur is engaged in manufacture of Papad and Badis, which admittedly is an industrial activity. The Society as per its memorand...
Rekha Vs. Ravindra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC331; 1993(0)MPLJ719
R.D. Shukla, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.86 of Vth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore passed in case No. 56/78 under Hindu Marriage Act, whereby a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, has been granted against the appellant-wife.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the parties (appellant & respondent) were married according to the Hindu rites on 20th February'77. They lived together as husband and wife and a female child was born to appellant-wife on 9.1.78 out of their conjugal relations. During her pregnancy the appellant was treated by Dr. Dhodapkar. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital at Vellore on 27.7.78. She remained in the hospital upto 17.9.78. The petition for divorce has been filed on 6.11.78. Accepting the contention of the husband-respondent a decree as above has been passed. This appeal was filed on 9.4.86. The respondent made appearance on 22.8.86.3. The petition for divorce was fi...
Gopal Vs. Manju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC395
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The appellant-husband had filed a petition seeking relief of divorce Under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore. This petition was registered as Hindu Marriage Case No. 343 of 1991. By order dated 12-3-92, this petition was, however, dismissed on the linchpin of the conclusion that grounds of cruelty and desertion as alleged, were not established. Against this judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal. This appeal, was, however, barred by time to the extent of 82 days. A separate application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit was also filed. The condonation was prayed and as attempt was made to explain this delay on the ground that parties were during that period seriously engaged in the efforts towards reconciliation.2. By order dated 7-8-92 a show cause notice against admission of this appeal as well as against the application Under Section 5 of the L...
Sontiya and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ72
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for enhancement of the compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 11 of 1983, on 10.1.1985, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.2. The facts are not disputed. Deceased Gyasiram, aged 35 years at the time of accident, was earning Rs. 600/- per month. The learned Tribunal assessed the dependency of seven dependants at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, while Rs. 300/- was deducted from the monthly earnings of the deceased as the deceased's own expenses. After selecting the multiplier of 15, a compensation of Rs. 54,000/- was determined. But, after deducting 15 per cent towards lump sum payment, the compensation awarded was Rs. 45,900/-, which was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till payment.3. Mr. Mahesh Haswani, placing reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Asha Devi, 1988 ACJ 846 (MP) and Fiza Bai's case, 1992 (2) MPJR 333, contende...
Battobai and ors. Vs. Tulsidass Sachdeva and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ92
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellants-claimants, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 35,100/- awarded for the death of Bhagwant, aged 35 years, who succumbed to injuries received in a motor accident on 8.5.1984 caused by the use of truck No. MPW 8479.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in claim case No. 161 of 1984, vide award dated 1.2.1988, after holding that accident arose because of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the respondent No. 2, awarded a sum of Rs. 39,000/- on the monthly dependency of Rs. 250/- for the widow and four children, by selecting a multiplier of 13, deducting therefrom ten per cent towards lump sum payment and for uncertainties of life.3. It was contended by Mr. Balwant Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, that the dependency calculated for five dependants is too low, as in Rs. 50/- per month a person cannot have bare meals of the two ends. Learned counsel plac...
Mst. Anjanbai and ors. Vs. Ramprasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP91; 1994(0)MPLJ36
P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for possession of the house as shown in Schedule 'A' situated at village Jawalpur, Petwari Halka No. 13, Tehsil Janjgir, District Bilaspur, on the ground that by registered sale deed dated 24-2-1955, they have purchased the suit house from one Satyabhama, widow of Nanki for the consideration of Rs. 900/-. There was a partition between the plaintiff/appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the peroperty in suit fell in the share of plaintiff No. 1. The suit house was sold by Satyabhama for the purposes of purchasing another property situated at her parents' place at village Bhainsnudi. After the death of Satyabhama on 30th December, 1979, on 31-12-1979 defendant/respondent Ramprasad took forcible possession of the suit property ousting plaintiff No. 1 Anjanbai, who was in possession of the same right from 24-2-1955. The defendant/respondent filed his written statement and denied allegations made in the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »