Madhya Pradesh Court January 1996 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.
Chatur Rao Vs. Manthu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996ACJ711
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal against the award dated 4.10.1991 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 11 of 1988 under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Claims Tribunal has awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 an award of Rs. 30,800/- with interest from 13.6.1988 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. This award has been passed against the appellant, who is the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley registered as MKV 9785. The Claims Tribunal has declined to grant any amount against the respondent No. 5, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was owner and driver of tractor No. MKV 9785. The tractor and trolley was insured with the respondent No. 5. The insurance was for agricultural purposes. It is alleged that on 10.4.1988, the deceased Jhamla Bai and other labourers were going in the tractor-trolley towards the Tapti river for bringing sand for the purpose o...
Yeshwant and anr. Vs. Kishore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC204; 1998ACJ672
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The unsuccessful claimants have filed this miscellaneous appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the order dated 4.5.1990 rendered by the 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwani in Claim Case No. 64 of 1989 thereby rejecting the application of the appellants presented under Section 92-A (new Section 140) for grant of interim award.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. MTC 6911. It was insured with respondent No. 2. It was driven rashly and negligently on 9.10.1983 as a result of which, it hit Raju causing him injuries and later on his death. Raju was an employee on this truck. The appellants filed a WC Case No. 62 of 1983 under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. In this case the appel lants were awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,000/-. On 10.11.1989, the appellants filed an application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the afo...
Kailash NaraIn Vs. Mahila Manbhota and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996MP194; 1996(0)MPLJ681
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. They are heard on admission.2. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree, which has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.3. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that he was the bhumiswami and person in possession of the disputed lands, and was, therefore, entitled to get his name so entered in the revenue records. It was also prayed that the respondents be permanently injuncted not to alienate the suit property and not to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of the disputed lands.4. The dispute has a chequered history.The parties are close relatives. During thependency of the suit, a written-deed of compromise under Order 23, Rule 3 of C.P.C. wasfiled on 28-4-92 in respect of the disputedlands, which was signed by the plaintiff-appellant and respondents 1 to 4. Thesignatures of the parties were also duly verified by their respective counsel. But...
Smt. Chandan Agarwal Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: I(1996)DMC598
N.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by the appellant/defendant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1994 passed by the District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 3-A/94 dissolving the marriage between the parties.2. The respondent/husband filed the instant civil suit against the appellant/ wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.3. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 20.5.1989 according to the customary Hindu rites. After the marriage, the appellant was brought to her matrimonial home at Jabalpur, but she was reluctant to live in the joint family of the respondent which consisted of his brother and his wife and two children.4. The respondent shifted to a rented house according to the wishes of the appellant, but there also the appellant could not create congenial atmosphere of a happy married life. Neither she cared to cater to the needs...
Padaman Vs. Anand Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC624; II(1997)DMC153
N.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1993 passed by the Vth Addl. District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1993, dismissing the suit.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the instant civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction apprehending dispossession of his land. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that in the family arrangement lands mentioned in the Schedules A & B of the plaint were allotted to him and he was in possession thereof. The appellant was thereafter adopted as a son in another family. After the adoption of the appellant, respondent/defendant Nos. 3 and 4, his natural brothers started threatening the appellant from dispossessing him from the land allotted to him in the family arrangement.3. The stand of the respondents/defendants 3 and 4 in their written state- ments was that the appellant/plaintiff had seized to be a member of their family after his adoption in another family. The land allotte...
Kailash Lalsingh Khangar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ380
A.S. Tripathi, J.1. Appellant Kailash has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, by the judgment and order dated 6th of Feb. 1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge of Pichhore, District Shivpuri.2. The facts of the case are that on 17-12-1991, at about 5.00 p.m. Kumari Mathi, daughter of Ram Prasad aged about 13 years, was going to the house of Rajaram. When she reached in the Har of Nainwara, near the well, one Lalu questioned about her identity. It is alleged that Lalu and his companion grappled with the girl and thrashed her down on the ground. His companion took out knife and threatened her with dire consequences. It is alleged that thereupon the appellant and his companion committed rape upon her. Prosecutrix Mathi started crying, whereupon witnesses Lakhan, Barelal and Munshi ...
Kailash, Khangar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Khaniyadhaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3189
A.S. Tripathi, J.1. Appellant Kailash has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, by the judgment and order dated 6th of Feb. 1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge of Pichhore, District Shivpuri.2. The facts of the case are that on 17-12-1991, at about 5.00 p.m. Kumari Mathi, daughter of Ram Prasad aged about 13 years, was going to the house of Rajaram. When she reached in the Har of Nainwara, near the well, one Lalu questioned about her identity. It is allegel that Lalu and his companion grappled with the girl and thrashed her down on the ground. His companion took out knife and threatened her with dire consequences. It is alleged that thereupon the appellant and his companion committed rape upon her. Prosceutrix Mathi slarted crying, where upon witnesses Lakahan Barelal and Muhshi...
Surjeet Singh Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC443
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, can be exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants so far as the present proceeding is concerned.2. Mr. Siddique, learned Counsel appearing for appellant has pointed out that at the relevant time the driver of truck bearing number CPF 8273 was having a valid licence and evidence on record proves abundantly that he was driving the said truck rashly and negligently when the said accident took place. Mr. A.H. Khan appearing for the Insurance Company pointed out that the said licence could not be produced at the time of hearing of claim case because the said driver had not produced it. Mr. Siddique argued that when the driver did not appear and did not contest the said proceeding, it was not possible for the appellant to procure the said licence from the driver of the said vehicle and to keep it on record.3. It is to be noted that the matters which are ari...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Tea Co. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR445(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. On request, the above noted miscellaneous civil cases, entailing common questions of fact and law are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Right at the threshold it may be stated that Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 514 of 1992, was listed today. On request the other miscellaneous civil cases, as particularised above, were also ordered to be listed today through a supplementary cause list for analogous hearing as connected matters. These miscellaneous civil cases are registered on the applications of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, presented under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and contain the undernoted question, categorised as one of law, for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provisions of Section 43B were applicable to the a...
Prakash Chand Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(MP)203; [1996]220ITR277(MP)
A.K. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee and the following two questions of law have been referred by ,the Tribunal for answer by this court :' (1) Whether in view of the fact that Mohd. Rasid, Proprietor of Mohd. Mohammad Rasid and Co., Jabalpur, was not summoned in evidence by the Income-tax Officer, in spite of the request made by the applicant under Section 131, in this behalf there is justification in law to use the evidence recorded behind the back of the applicant without affording an opportunity to him to cross-examine the said Mohd. Rashid and drawing an adverse inference ? (2) Whether the assessment is vitiated in law as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed in summoning the witnesses as requested under Section 131 and his failure to consider the affidavit of Mohd. Rashid filed along with the written reply submitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »