Madhya Pradesh Court February 1997 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.
Leelawati and ors. Vs. Ravindra Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1306
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This order shall dispose of M.A. No. 335 of 1989 (Leelawati v. Ravindra Kumar) and M.A. No. 63 of 1990 (M.D., Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. v. Leelawati) as also the cross-objections filed in both the cases.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.9.1989 of IV Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 135 of 1987, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 24.1.1984 till realisation of the same with a further direction that all the three respondents (non-applicants) are jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation. The claimants-appellants have filed M.A. No. 335 of 1989 for enhancement of the amount.Respondent Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.D.C. Ltd.') has filed M.A. No. 63 of 1990 challenging the liability of payment on the ground that the ...
Prem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(70)LC244(MP)
ORDERDeepak Varma, J.1. On consent, parties were heard on merits.2. This petition under Article 226/227 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in petitioner's appeal on 6/8th Jan. 1997 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Submission of petitioner is that it had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim stay and had also mentioned about the financial status of the petitioner but these grounds have not been considered.3. I have perused the impugned order passed in appeal by which petitioner's application filed under Section 35F of Central Excise Act has been rejected. The grounds mentioned and canvassed before me have been considered by the appellate authority. I find no jurisdictional error. Consequently the petition is hereby dismissed but if the petitioner makes an application before the appellate authority for early hearing of the appeal on merits, out of turn, then the auth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›