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.
National Insurance Company, Jabalpur Vs. Thaglu Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ248; AIR1994MP177; 1994(0)MPLJ663
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. These cases arise out of the interim awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' short), requiring the owners and insurers to pay compensation for no fault liability.2. In the former two cases, the labourers who were waiting by the road side, were invited by the truck drivers who offered them wages. They got into the trucks and while travelling, the trucks were involved in accidents causing deaths of some and injuring others. The heir of the two deceased labourers filed claim petitions against the owners and insurers of the trucks.3. The accident leading to M.P. No. 28/ 94 involved a truck in which several persons including the deceased sitting on the rear side died and some others were injuried. The heirs of one of the deceased persons filed claim petition against the owners and insurers of the truck.4. According to the Insurance Companies, the policy in each of the three cas...
S.P. Anand Vs. Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Jha, Chief Justice
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994MP195; 1994(0)MPLJ531
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Petitioner, a resident of Indore, who describes himself as doing farming etc.' has filed this Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition challenging Notification dated 17-7-1992, issued by the then Chief Justice of the M.P. High Court and seeking consequential reliefs.2. The present State of Madhya Pradesh was constituted with effect from 1-11-1956 Under/Section 9 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), and comprises of the territories of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, except a few districts, the territories of the former State of Madhya Bharat, except a part of a Tehsil, a Sub-Division in the then State of Rajasthan, territories of the State of the former States of Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh. Section 49(1) declared that the High Court of the former State of Madhya Pradesh shall, with effect from the appointed day, be deemed to be the High Court for the new State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 50 abolished the High Court of Madhya Bharat and the Co...
Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif (Firm) Through Partners Vs. Mohammed Iqbal S/O K ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ624
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The appellant in this letters patent appeal filed a suit against the respondents herein and prayed for an order of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. The Court passed an order which was not to plaintiff's satisfaction. The plaintiff thereupon filed a miscellaneous appeal in this Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal.2. The question which arises for consideration is whether letters patent appeal is maintainable. We are told that a similar question has been referred by a Division Bench to the Full Bench of this Court. In view of what we propose to indicate hereinafter, we think it unnecessary to refer this case to Full Bench or to wait till the Full Bench disposes the reference already made.3. The order passed by the trial Court in this case is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. An appeal lies against such an order by virtue of Section 104(1)(i) of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 104 states that n...
S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. Vs. Suptd. (Preventive), C. Ex.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT273(MP)
ORDERP.P. Naolkar, J.1. The petitioners in this petition have initially prayed for quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1, Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Indore. During the pendency of this petition, orders have been passed quantifying the liability of the petitioner No. 1 and for imposition of penalty. The orders of quantification of the excise duty and imposition of penalty (Annexure-M & N) are challenged in this petition by way of amendment.2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its head office at New Delhi. This company has a branch at Maihar in the State of Madhya Pradesh, manufacturing lime. The petitioner No. 2, M/s. Diwan Lime Company Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at New Delhi and a branch at Maihar in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacture of lime. The petitioner-companies are also hold...
Shri S.N. Awasthi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995MP33; 1994(0)MPLJ997
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners claiming to be beneficiaries of sanction for building as per resolution of the respondent Cantonment Board dated 30-3-1990 (Document No. 1), feel aggrieved by suspension thereof by order dated 22-6-1991 (Annexure-R/9) and subsequent revocation thereof by resolution dated 5-7-1991 (Annexure P/22A) and have approached this Court, challenging legal validity thereof by filing this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Admittedly, the sanction relates to portion of the Plot No. 95/9-A & No. 95-1 of Bungalow No. 4, 3rd Bridge Road, Cantonment, Jabalpur, originally held by one Narmada Prasad Indurakhya. The said Narmada Pd. Indurakhya had sold the disputed plots to R. P. Shukla, who having purchased the same, got the building plan prepared and submitted the same to the respondent Cantonment Board for approval under Section 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It appears that there has been an earlie...
Abdul Rasheed Siddiqui and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995MP138; 1995MPLJ25
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. Second petitioner is the wife of first petitioner. They reside at Ambikapur. First petitioner Ss a practising Advocate at Ambikapur. First petitioner also claims to be a social and political activist. First petitioner and his son filed a writ petition M.P. No. 2895/92 in this Court against the District Collector, the third respondent herein and others alleging that thethird respondent, Additional Collector of the district, Without any jurisdiction started enquiry against the second petitioner in regard to a matter which was outside his jurisdiction. This Court also passed an interim order slaying the enquiry. Thereupon, the third respondent made a report to the fourth respondent, officer-in-charge of Harijan Kalyan Prakoshtha, Abmikapur alleging that he is a member of the scheduled caste and the act of filing the writ petition against him would be an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention, of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ...
Shubha Kaushik and anr. Vs. Ram Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ844
S.K. Dubey and J.G. Chitre, JJ.1. Both counsel submit that as the paperbook is ready, the appeal be heard and disposed of finally. Accordingly, counsel heard.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) Grade II and was working at Niwadi at the relevant time, who was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 1,290/- per month. After two months, he was to be promoted in Grade I of A.P.P.; the total emoluments of the said post are Rs. 2,044/-. The Tribunal while calculating the compensation and the dependency and by applying the multiplier of 16 illegally deducted 1/6th amount for lump sum payment, as it is well settled that when a multiplier is selected and applied, no payment can be deducted from lump sum, because multiplier takes care of deduction as well as of promotion, etc.3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the dependency calculated is too excessive, as the deceased at the relevant ti...
M.P. Electricity Board Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC423
M.V. Thamaskar, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC by Firs Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 10-B/84 dated 8.3.1990.2. Facts not in dispute are that M.P.E.B., Jabalpur had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 31,300/- and an amount paid by M.P.E.B. towards compensation to one of its employee on account of death in an accident caused by the vehicle of M.P.S.R.T.C. The matter was listed for recording of evidence. The Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff sought time to produce the evidence. The perusal of the order discloses that after framing the issues on 16.6.1988, the suit was listed for evidence on 6.2.1989, 7.8.1989, and 8.11.1989 and 8.3.1990. on none of the dates, plaintiff produced its witnesses, nor on 8.3.1990 evidence was produced though the Advocate Mr. Tripathi was present for the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court proceeded to decide the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and dismissed the s...
Shankar Mahadeo Traders Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC105(MP)
1. The petitioners who are registered as 'dealers' under Section 15 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and dealing in either cloth, sugar and/or tobacco, challenge imposition of entry tax under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing imposition of entry tax on these goods and quashing notices issued by the respondents restraining them from further proceeding or continuing with the assessment proceedings levying entry tax.2. As the points involved in all those petitions are common and they have been heard together these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.3. Before proceeding any further it would not be out of place to make it clear that in deciding these petitions we are not dealing with the question of 'vires' which forms subject-matter of another bunch of petitions pending at the main seat, the hearing of these petitions was strictly confined to pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›