Madhya Pradesh Court March 1994 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.
Vasundhara and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ919
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This order shall dispose of M.A. No. 404 of 1992 filed by the claimants and M.A. No. 75 of 1993 filed by the State of M.P. through Chief Secretary, Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan and Dy. Registrar, Sahakari Samitiyan.2. Brief history of the case is that on 12.10.1986 at 5.30 p.m., one Prakash Pathak, who was an employee in the State Bank was going from Shankar Bag to Ahilya Ashram on a scooter No. MPI 7656, owned by him. Meanwhile the jeep No. MPZ 4158 came from the opposite direction at an excessive speed and dashed against the scooter. Prakash was thrown off and sustained injuries in the head and leg. He died nearly two hours after the incident. Vasundhara Pathak, who is the widow of Prakash Pathak, Kalpana d/o Prakash Pathak and Kiran s/o Prakash Pathak, filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,42,000 under the following headings:General damages Rs. 6,71,000/-Expected amountof gratuity Rs. 66,000/-Loss of love andaffection Rs. 1,00,000/-Los...
Rusoma Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: 1994LC544(MP); 1994(74)ELT573(MP)
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. The parties are heard.2. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to get refund for the period from June, 1979 to March, 1984 and from 1-4-1984 to 1-4-1985 from respondent No. 1. The amount of refund is about Rs. 4,70,000/-. This refund was refused by respondent No. 3. Against the order of refusal by respondent No. 3, an appeal lies to the Tribunal.3. The petitioner frankly concedes the position that appeal does lie but by now this stands barred by time.4. In my view, a more satisfactory solution is available on the terms of statute itself. I do not find any sufficient cause to entertain this dispute under extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.5. I, therefore, dispose of this petition by making the following directions :-(a) If the petitioner so feels, an appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal by 15-4-1994.(b) As the petitioner was diligently prosecuting this petition, I further direct that in case the appeal is preferred...
Vasundhra and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC540
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This order shall dispose of MA. No. 404/92 filed by the claimants and M.A. No. 75/93 filed by the State of M.P. through Chief Secretary, Registrar Sahakari Samitiyan and Dy. Registrar Sahakari Samitiyan.2. Brief history of the case is that on 12.10.86 at 5.30 p.m., one Prakash Pathak, who was an employee in the State Bank was going from Shankar Bag to Ahilya Ashram on a Motor Scooter M.P.I. 7656, owned by him. Mean while Motor Jeep M.P.Z. 4158 came from the opposite direction in an excessive speed and dashed against the scooter. Shri Prakash was thrown and sustained injuries in the head and leg. He died nearly two hours after the incident. Shrimati Vasundhara Pathak, who is widow of Prakash Pathak, Ku. Kalpana d/o Prakash Pathak and Kiran s/o Prakash Pathak filed a claim petition for being awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,42,000/- with following headings:General damages Rs. 6,71,000.00Expected amount of gratuity Rs. 66,000.00Loss of love & affection Rs. 1,...
indore-kolhapur Roadlines Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC141(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. On request the petition is finally heard.2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern Amrik Singh is its proprietor. The office is located at Indore. The petitioner claims to be a public transporter and carries goods for hire from one place to another. On September 17, 1992, the petitioner carried the goods in its truck with all essential documents as required under the law. This truck was coming from Sangli to Indore. The respondent No. 1 found that the petitioner deviated from the normal route and opted to pass by another route. The respondent No. 1 checked the aforesaid truck in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29-CC of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, but found everything in order. The petitioner has averred essential facts in para 11 of its petition. These facts are not disputed by the respondents in their reply.3. It is submitted before me that the proceedings of penalty have been initiated not on the basis of any lapse in terms of Section 29-CC of...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Guddi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1134; (1995)ILLJ971MP
Tej Shankar, J.1. One Ram Niwas Rathore, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 and son of respondent No. 3, was employed as a driver on truck No. MKH 7948. On October 10, 1990 he met with an accident and lost his life Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 moved a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which was allowed and a sum of Rs. 86,764/- together with 50 per cent penalty and interest at the rate of 8 per cent was awarded by order dated November 17, 1992 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation No. 1 Gwalior, against the insurance company. Feeling aggrieved the insurance company has preferred this appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The learned counsel for the appellantraised three submissions before me. Firstly, he argued that under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act the appellant is not covered within the meaning of 'employer' and as such he cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation and penalty provided in t...
Yashpal Gaur Vs. Meena Suri and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ480
T.S. Doabia, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Yashpal Gaur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He met with an accident on 27.7.1987. He is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation allowed to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). He is seeking enhancement.2. The facts are not in dispute. So far as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been assailed before us. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation.3. The claimant is a government servant. He is working as lecturer in Government Ploytechnic College, Gwalior. At the time of accident he was 54 years old. He met with an accident on 27.7.1987 at about 5.30 p.m. He was hit by an Ambassador car No. MBW 1140. He was taken to a Nursing Home where first aid was administered to him. The doctor who attended him found that there was fracture of patela of both sides. He, advised further op...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. M.P. Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995MP73; 1995(0)MPLJ512
M.V. Tamaskar, J. 1. This is defendant/appellant's appeal against judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Chhindwara, in C.S. 12A/88, decided on 30-1-1990.2. Respondent/plaintiff M.P. Electricity Board filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 48,000/ -alleging that money-orders were sent by its Administrative Officer, Distribution Centre of Panjra, Tehsil Amarwara, District Chhindwara through Post Officer Panjra to remit the amount recovered from the electric consumers to the Head Office, M.P.E.B., Jabalpur. Amount of Rs. 1,94,766.55 P. were sent by money-orders on different receipts. The Post Master though gave the receipts of the whole amount did not remit full and retain the amount which ultimately in the analysis amount of Rs. 47,737.67 P. remained unremit-ted. A report was lodged and a demand was made for Rs. 48,237.67 P. along with interest. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served but no reply was received from the appellant/defendant.3. Thereafter a sui...
Mohandas Vs. Devandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995MP185
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J. 1. The order in this revision petition shall also govern the disposal of Kishore Kumar Nagurkar v. Devan Das, C. R. No. 524 of 1993, decided on 16th March, 1994, 2. In these revision petitions the point raised is as to whether an employee of a Municipal Corporation is a Government Servant within the meaning of Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? 3. In these revision petitions admittedly the non-applicant Devan Das is a common landlord. He was working as Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and retired on 31-7-1989. After retirement he filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal under Section 23-A of Chapter III for eviction of the applicants-tenants. 4. According to the applicants, the non-applicant is not covered in the definition of the landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the application before the Rent C...
Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Madhya Pradesh Dugdha Mahasangh Sahakari Marya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ692
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1578 of 1992. Facts in brief are thus : The two petitioners are holding the posts of Village Extension Organisers in the pay scale of Rs. 1,600-2,720/- and are posted at Banmore, District Morena, under the employment of respondent No. 2, a co-operative society registered and classified as 'Central Society' under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act'). The respondent No. 1 is also a registered society under the Act, classified as 'Federal Society' and is an apex body of Central Societies like respondent No. 1. The Managing Director of the respondent No. 1, passed an order dated 20-9-1992 (Annexure P/l) of transferring the petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Narendra Pal Singh Rana, on deputation to the Integrated Tribal Dairy Project at Raigarh and Surguja (Ambikapur), respectively. The order speaks that the two petitioners would have their lien in the services on their substantive post ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kasturibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ671
Tej Shankar, J. 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that steps for service have to be taken for respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 points out that the appeal itself is not maintainable and as such it will be futile to take steps for service of respondent No. 5. He relied upon the case of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP), in which Full Bench of this court has specifically held that order of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not appealable under Section 173. It has further been observed that if such order is passed arbitrarily the High Court can give relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that an application has also been moved for converting the appeal into a writ petition.3. I have heard the learned counsel on the points raised. It may well be said that in the aforesaid authority of Gaya Prasad v. Suresh Kumar 1992 ACJ 200 (MP), i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »