Madhya Pradesh Court September 1994 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Napier Town, Jabalpur Vs. Annamma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1189; AIR1995MP244; 1995(0)MPLJ699
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The insurer of a vehicle involved in an accident is the appellant therein: The legal representatives of a person who sustained fatal injuries in an accident involving the vehicle injured by the appellant filed an application before the M. A. C. T. and also prayed for compensation arising from 'no-fault liability' under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The insurer admitted that the vehicle was covered by policy at the relevant time but disputed the liability on the basis of a condition of the policy excluding liability if the accident takes place beyond 80 kilo meters from Jabalpur. The Tribunal overruled this contention and awarded compensation under Section 92-A of the Act.2. The Insurer challenged this award before this Court and the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. The matter has been referred to Full Bench in view of doubt about the maintainability of L. P. A. (The Oriental Insurance Company v. Chintaman, C...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Verma and anr. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR1051]; (1996)ILLJ46MP; 1995(0)MPLJ853
A. K. Mathur, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court on account of two conflicting decisions delivered by the Division Bench of this Court one in the case of Union of India v. Presiding Officer, CGIT (Misc. Petition No. 1135 of 1988), decided on April 27, 1988 and another in the case of Union of India v. Competent Authority Labour Court, Jabalpur and Anr. (M.P.No. 84 of 1988) decided on January 10, 1989.2. The question for consideration of this Court is that 'whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in the light of the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunals Act or not.'3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent No. 2 - Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur, which is governed by the provisions of the Indian Factories Act, A dispute arose that whether the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Nirbhay Singh and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ296
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code filed by two accused in a private complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Single Judge who admitted the petition directed issue of notice to the State and further directed that in the meantime the applicant shall not be arrested until further orders. One of us (Bhat, C.J.) who heard the matter at a subsequent stage doubted the maintainability of the application and also the legality of the interim order and referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the matter should be examined by a Full Bench and accordingly reference has been made. That is how the matter has come before us.2. The police registered a case against two accused on the information furnished by the complainant. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed agains the two accused. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Sharma and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ538
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Petitioners have been convicted, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on two counts and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count under Section 394 and 397, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and under Section 449, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Having undergone seven years of sentence, they moved the State Government for release on licence under the provisions of the M. P. Act No. 15 of 1954 and the rules made thereunder. After intervention by this Court in three successive writ petitions, the State Government ultimately rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners are ineligible under Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1964. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in M. P. No. 1688 of 1993. They have now filed this writ petition challenging the vires of Rule 3(a) of the Rules of 1964 and seeking consequential reliefs.2. A Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatlal Deolal Lodhi Vs. Top Singh Somaru Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ1050
D.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. Appellant Bharatlal resident of village Padmi was employed as Chowkidar in village Oughat Khapri from where he used to come to his home on every Sunday. Rambai was his wife. They were wedded 10 years earlier and also had a child of about 7 years. It was on 17th February, 1980 that when Bharatlal came to his house he did not find his wife there. Then he waited for sometime and made enquiry in the village but could not get any clue. It was from Dayaram (P.W.3) he came to know that his wife had gone to village Tikarwada along with accused Top Singh, who was working as Peon in the Panchayat Office in that village. Complainant Bharatlal thereafter went to that village and enquired from Top Singh about his wife. At this, Top Singh told him that his wife is living with him and he has kept her as his wife and there is no question of sending her with him. He thereafter returned back and went to the police station to lodge a report but his report was not recorded. The police...
Tag this Judgment!Nirbhay Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3317
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1.This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr PC filed by two accused in a private complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, I.P.C.. The learned Single Judge who admitted the petition directed issue of notice to the State and further directed that in the meantime the applicant shall not be arrested until further orders. One of us (Bhat, C.J.) who heard the matter at a subsequent stage doubted the maintainability of the application and also the legality of the interim order and referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the matter should be examined by a Full Bench and accordingly reference has been made. That is how the matter has come before us. 2. The police registered a case against two accused on the information furnished by the complainant. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the two accused. Thereafter, the first informant filed a private ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatlal Vs. Top Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3545
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. Appellant Bharatlal resident of village Padmi was employed as Chowkidar in village Oughat Khapri from where he used to come to his home on every Sunday. Rambai was his wife. They were wedded 10 years earlier and also had a child of about 7 years. It was on 17th February, 1980 that when Bharatlal came to his house he did not find his wife there. Then he waited for sometime and made enquiry in the village but could not get any clue. It was from Dayaram (PW 3) he came to know that his wife had gone to village Tikarwada along with accused Top Singh, who was working as Peon in the Panchayat Office in that village. Complainant Bharatlal thereafter went to that village and enquired from Top Singh about his wife. At this, Top Singh told him that his wife is living with him and he has kept her as his wife and there is no question of sending her with him. He thereafter returned back and went to the police station to lodge a port but his report was not recorded. The police as...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi Vs. Chitaman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ225; AIR1995MP229; [1996]85CompCas732(MP); 1995(0)MPLJ259
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. Civil Revision 602 of 1992 has been filed by the insurer against a decision under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation on account of no fault liability. Civil Revisions Nos. 589/92 and 454/93 have been filed by claimants in different cases against rejection of the claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Act. Civil Revision No. 70/93 has been filed by an owner of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in an accident who has been directed under Section 140 to pay compensation on account of no fault liability. Civil Revision No. 590/ 92 has been filed by an owner of the vehicle similarly placed. M.P. No. 2351/92 has been filed by a claimant under Article 227 of the Constitution whose claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Act has been rejected.2. The civil revision petitions have been referred to a Full Bench by a learned single Judge. The petition under Article 227 of t...
Tag this Judgment!indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congress and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1998(1)MPLJ449
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these batches of petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed herewith shall stand disposed of by this common opinion.2. A reference has been made by the Chief Justice of this Court to this Full Bench to answer the question that 'whether the law laid down in the case of Dr. Vasant v. State of M.P., 1986 MPLJ 295 = 1986 JLJ 115 is correct law or not. In Misc Petition No. 1801/89, it was prayed that section 58(5) and (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982) and the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act No. 7 of 1988) may be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.3. The petitioner-Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Congress a registered representative body, has challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions that an employee of the Municipal Corporation cannot be transferred from one to another Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Narayan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ648
ORDERD.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. The order appealed against is the order dated 20-7-1994 (Annexure-A-2) to the Memo of Appeal. This order is passed under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal is styled as appeal under Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal could only be filed against the order passed under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code. The distinction between Sections 340 and 344, Criminal Procedure Code is that the order under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code is appealable whereas the order under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code is not appealable.2. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to sub-section (2) of Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code and on that basis he treated the impugned order as order under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code. The submission is unsustainable. Sub-section (3) of Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code is extracted below :-'344 (3). Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »