Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Kantilal Vs. Manohar Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC413
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This Misc. Appeal filed under Section 110(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the award dated 29.6.81 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 66/77.2 Shorn of the details, the facts of the case are-That the deceased Chotelal was an agriculturist. He was knocked down by a car bearing registration No. MMB-1143 at 8.30 p.m. on 12.7.77 near Village Pandyakhedi, Tahsil Ujjain. The respondents presented a claim petition on 27.10.77 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,252.50. This claim was resisted by the appellant. His main defence was that he was neither the owner nor the driver of this vehicle. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal held the appellant liable and awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,250/- together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the application. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal.3. I have heard Shri G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for the app...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. Mangilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC37
R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him vide Award dated 28th January, 1982, passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim case No. 81/79.2. There is no dispute as to driving of the Car by respondent No. 2 at the time of accident and as to ownership of respondent No. 1, who was the last transferee of the vehicle and obtained possession of Motor Car on supurdginama from criminal Court.3. The case of the claimant is that he was going on Scooter 'Lambretta' from his house towards Labriya Bheru, where respondent No. 2, who was driving Car No. MPJ 231 in an excessive speed dashed against the Scooter from the wrong side. The claimant sustained injuries. He was medically examined, admitted in M.Y. Hospital, sustained fracture of shaft of right femur and fracture of right pattela bone. He was treated. Intra-medial nailing was done on femur bone and pattelactomy was also performed. There was shortening of leg...
Smt. Meera Asthana Vs. Rajendranath Asthana
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP18; II(1994)DMC532; 1994(0)MPLJ74
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Over a petty matter, the petitioner, defendant-wife, in a matrimonial proceedings has been required to knock the doors of this Court for the second time. The controversy catching the attention of the trial Court as well as this Court for the moment arises out of applications under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. filed respectively by the defendant and the plaintiff. Earlier when the wife-petitioner had come up to this Court in C.R. No. 209/92, her application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. calling for rejection of the plaint had been rejected by the trial Court directing her to file the written-statement. Applications seeking amendment of the plaint were also pending. This Court had directed:--'..... the revision is allowed, theimpugned order rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. is set aside. Instead the trial Court is directed to take up the plaintiff/ non-petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 as also the defen...
indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congress, Indore Vs. State of Madhya Pra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP84; 1993(0)MPLJ847
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This petition and M.P. No. 174/92 were heard together as they involve the same question viz. whether a Municipal Corporation can delegate/convey by auction the right to realise a tax leviable under the M.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the 'Corporations Act). This petition has been filed by the Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congress a registered body of the employees of Indore Municipal Corporation. The other petition M.P. No. 174/92 is filed by employees of Municipal Corporation, Ujjan. 2. The petitioners in both these cases contend that the decision of the Respondents, Municipal Corporations, to grant the right of collection of terminal tax on passengers, on the basis of an auction is bound to affect adversely the promotional prospects of their Members, the employees of the aforesaid Corporations. It is contended that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Bye-laws made thereunder, a specific procedure for recovery of taxes is p...
ibadatali S/O Abbas Ali Vs. Municipal Council, Khargone and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1994MP58; 1993(0)MPLJ640
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. PetitionsNos. 1078/92, 1337/92, 907/92, 1027/92, 780/92, 846/92 and 1183/92. This bunch of cases was heard along with Misc. Petition No. 111/92 as the point involved in these cases was the same as was involved in that case with the only difference that that was a case under the M.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the 'Corporation Act') and these are the cases under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Municipalities Act'). In our order prononuced in M.P. No. 111/92 declared today, we have taken the view that function of recovery of a Municipal Tax cannot be transferred by way of auction or othewise by Municipal Corporations to any other agency. The reasons stated in our decision in M.P. No. 111/92 to a great extent apply to these cases under the Municipalities Act also. However, certain features peculiar to the Municipalities Act compel us to write this separate judgment gi...
Shri Bajrang Extraction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Secretary to the Go ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: AIR1993MP202
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. The order passed in this case shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1559/90. 2-3. The petitioner/company carries on the business of extraction of oil by the solvent extraction process. According to the petitioner they have set up a Company in Dhar Distriction in the State of Madhya Pradesh allured by a Scheme framed by the Government of India in the year 1971 for grant of subsidy to Industrial Units set up in selected backward Districts/ Areas, one of which was Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh. The Scheme was initially published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 26-8-1971. TheScheme was called 10% Central Outright Grant of Subsidy Scheme, 1971. The Scheme was amended from time to time. The amount of subsidy was also raised by amendment from 10% to 25%. The duration of the Scheme was also extended from time to time and the last such extension extended the operative period of the Scheme up to 30th September, 1988. 4. The petitioner purchased lan...
Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh Sahkari Maryadit and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ513MP; 1993(0)MPLJ767
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The two petitions have come up before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court constituted by one of us (S.K. Dubey, J.) and Shri S.K. Chawla, J. Before the Division Bench, during the course of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the respondent No. 1, the Madhya Pradesh Dugdha Maha Sangh Sahkari Maryadit, Bhopal, was registered on May 13, 1980 by the Registrar, M.P. Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (for short, the 'Registrar') under Section 9 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (forshort, the* Act), and was classified as 'Federal Society' vide registration certificate (Annexure R/4), whereby bye- laws (Annexure R/5) were also approved under Section 9 of the Act by the Registrar. The respondent No. 2 was registered as a Co-operative Society on July 4, 1983 and classified as 'Central Society', which also had its own approved bye-laws, Annexure R/7. The two societies arc not rendering any important public ...
Dr. Usha Narwariya Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ252MP; 1993(0)MPLJ969
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common order answers the common reference made in M.P. No. 1278/92 (Dr. Usha Narwariya v. State of M.P.) and M.P. No. 1335/92 (Jairam Soni v. M.P. Public Service Commission). A Division Bench consisting of S.K. Dubey and S.K. Chawla, JJ. formed an opinion that there was a cleavage of opinion in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, namely, M.P. No. 1060/ 91 (Man Mohan Singh v. State of M.P.) decided on February 7, 1992 at Gwalior and M.P. No. 166/91 (Betalsingh Mahore v. State of M.P.) decided on April 28, 1992 at Gwalior, (1992) 1 MPJR 437, and made a reference to the Hon'ble Chief Justice who has been pleased to constitute this Full Bench for resolving the conflict in the abovesaid two Division Bench decisions.2. A reference in brief to the facts of the two cases is proposed to be made as it would enable acquiring firm grip over the controversy arising for decision.3. In M.P. No. 1278/92, in response to an advertisement issued by M.P. Public Service Comm...
Putrobai and ors. Vs. Lalchand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ280
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This second appeal, preferred by the defendant/appellants, raises purely a legal controversy requiring determination of shares to which the parties would be entitled on partition in accordance with principles of Hindu Law.2. This Court has admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law only :--'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Lalchand is to be granted 9/32nd share in the suit property?'3. The facts in so far as relevant for the decision of this appeal are beyond controversy at this stage. The genealogical tree is admitted. It is as under:--Khuba|Mardansingh(Defendant No. 6)(died on 30-6-1981)|-----------------------------------------| |Manvobai Putrobai(Paintiff No. 1) (Defdt. No. 1)(Died on 19-4-1984) | ----------------------------------------| | | | | Lalchand Somatsingh Dannala Prabhulal Ramchandran(Paintiff No. 1) D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 Khuba was the original owner. He had died much b...
Devpriya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC12; 1993(67)ELT479(MP)
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The following order of the court was delivered by V.S. Kokje 'J':2. This case was heard along with Misc. Petition No. 1108/92. The petitioner seeks quashing of a show cause notice dated 28-8-1991 issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, on the ground that the inputs of the petitioner's product come under Heading No. 72.15 and 73.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the petitioner the show cause notice is basically wrong being based on wrong interpretation of the notification. On the question of alternate remedy being not an absolute bar to a writ petition, several rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - Sainet Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 141 (Bom.), Bomin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India - 1981 (8) E.L.T. .618 (Guj.), Nirma Chemical Works v. Union of India -1981 (8) E.L.T. 617 (Guj.). Union of India v. Punjab Rubber & Allied Indus. -1992 (58) E.L.T. 409 (P & H) were cited i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »