Madhya Pradesh Court January 1998 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.
Angoori Devi and ors. Vs. Man Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ407
Fakhruddin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of deceased Satish Chandra Jain, who died in a motor accident on 31.1.1992, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 12 of 1992 on 30.4.1996.2. The admitted facts are that on 31.1.1992, jeep No. MP 07 M 3741 was being driven by Satish Chandra Jain. In this jeep, besides Satish Chandra, Parmal Singh, Padam Singh and Tulsi Ram were also sitting. It was coming from Morena to Gwalior. While the jeep was so coming, about two kilometres north near police station, Bahodapur, the jeep met with an accident with truck No. DIG 3288. The truck was being driven by Man Singh, respondent No. 1 and was owned by Ram Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 2. It was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co., respondent No. 3. Satish Chandra died on the spot. Others sustained injuries.3. The Tribunal found that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. As a...
Prem Kumari and ors. Vs. Rajbeer Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 2001ACJ709
Fakhruddin, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 11.2.1997 passed by 3rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 26 of 1996.2. Briefly stated the facts are that an accident occurred on 13.2.1995 in which Mangal Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 Prem Kumari and the father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 Rajbeer Singh, driver of the alleged tractor No. MP-OJ-6838. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said tractor.3. The claimants-appellants filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind. They also filed an application under Section 140 for no fault liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, though allowed the application and passed an interim award of Rs. 50,000, but that amount was not directed to be paid to the claimants and instead it has been directed to be deposited in the fixed deposit for ten years in the name of thr...
Lal Captanlal Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. at Gwalior and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP23
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a common order of the Board of Revenue passed in three separate cases between the petitioner and respondents 5, 6, & 7 in proceedings under Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short referred to as the 'Act'). It is not disputed that the three parcels of land which were separately in possession of respondents 5, 6 and 7 are recorded as Bhumi Swami Lands in Revenue Records under the Code in the name of petitioner who is a member of Aboriginal Tribe. The three parcels of land were obtained between 1965-1970 by respondents 5, 6 and 7 under a lease on payment of fixed rent per month and for a limited duration. The petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg by three separate applications against respondents 5, 6 and 7 complaining that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 have erected Pakka Structures on the land for running their shops and have neither...
Om Prakash Vs. Noor Jahan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998MP137; 1998(1)MPLJ405
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioner/ appellant had filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 1st June, 1983, whereunder the revision application of Asraf Khan, the respondent had been allowed, and for quashing of the order passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Board) rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking review of the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 2nd September, 1983. Besides the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner/ appellant had also prayed for appropriate directions for maintaining the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 5th of July, 1982, restoring the decree passed in favour of the appellant providing for the ejectment of the contesting respondent, Asraf Khan from the agricultural holdings in dispute ordering for the restoring of the possession thereof in favour of the petitioner/ appellant. 2. A learned single Judge of thi...
Goyal and Sons and anr. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samittee and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998MP202; 1998(2)MPLJ282
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioners/appellants had approached this Court by meansof a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orderpassed by the respondent, Krishi Upaj MandiSamiti Sabalgarh, District, Morena (hereinafterreferred to as Samiti) requiring the petitioners/appellants to take out its processed articles out ofthe market proper only after obtaining the requisite 'Gate pass' in the absence whereof theSamiti will not allow passing of the vehicle ofthe petitioners, carrying the processed goods.The petitioners also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents not to create hurdles in dealing of processed agricultural goods. 2. A learned single Judge of this Court by means of the impugned order dismissed the writ petition holding that it was without any merit. 3. Feeling aggrieved, out of the three petitioners, two of them have come up in this Letters Patent Appeal praying reversal of the impugned order. 4. We have heard the lear...
Meena Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority-cum Collector and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ309
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The election of Smt. Meena Singh for the office of Member of Janpad Panchayat, Sidhi was questioned by respondent No. 2 Smt. Padma Singh by way of election petition before the Collector Sidhi, who was the prescribed Authority under the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner was a successful candidate whereas Smt. Padma Singh was the candidate who lost at the contest. Both are inter se related as Nanad and Bhoujai. The compromise was arrived at between the two candidates and as such an application was moved before the Prescribed Authority for withdrawal of the Election Petition No. 3-A/89-93-94. The application so moved was rejected. Against this order, the successful candidate has come to this court instead of the candidate whose application for withdrawal was rejected. The person who moved the election petition is represented before this court by Shri L. S. Baghel, Senior Advocate.3. Since bot...
Kedar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs. R.K. Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ258
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. K. Dixit2. Petitioner Kedar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti through its President Debdas Mohanta has approached this Court for drawing contempt proceedings against Shri R. K. Sharma, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Samta Building, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 1407/95 on 3-5-1995 an ex parte order, which is as extracted below, was passed in favour of the petitioner :'3-5-1995:Heard Shri S. K. Dixit for the petitioner on admission and stay, Shri R.K.Gupta for the State.The petition is admitted. Issue notice to the other respondents on both. P.F. in three days.Shri Gupta wants time to file the reply to the stay application.Meanwhile till then, the operation of Annexure-A shall remain stayed.In case the respondents produce the documents that charge has been handed over, they can apply for vacating the stay order. C.C. on payment.'3. The order was ex parte. From the order it...
Sant Kumar Deshmukh Vs. Smt. Chitralekha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998MP314; 1998(2)MPLJ312
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-/-1996 in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1994 passed by I Additional District Judge, Durg by which petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 of the appellant was dismissed and decree for divorce as prayed by him was refused.2. Undisputedly, the parties were married on 3-5-1984 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. It is also not in dispute that on an application filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for judicial separation was passed in her favour, by judgment and decree dated 9-9-1993. The case of the petitioner/appellant is that the marriage between the parties subsisted only for 2 years and 4 months and thereafter, the parties developed bitter relations between them. This bitterness developed on account of the fact that the respondent had inflated ego, as she was an employed lady. She had also filed a false case against the appellant and his fa...
Shantibai Vs. Rambilas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC111
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the decree of divorce which has been passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Mandsour, in the matter of Suit No. 30/84, dissolving her marriage with respondent-Rambilash.2. Mr. P.K. Saxena with Mr. Ashish Gupta has been heard for the appellant. Respondent was absent when this appeal was called on for hearing and none appeared for him, though this matter has been listed for final hearing as per the cause list.3. The marriage between the parties took place in the year 1972 or 1974 at village Dharakhedi. After the appellant attained puberty she went to cohabit with the respondent/husband and stayed with him as his wife for 4 years as contended by the appellant in the matrimonial petition filed by her for decree of restitution of conjugal right. She also contended that she conceived a male child which has been named as Suresh. According to her averment she was driven out of his house by the res...
Devendra Kumar Bhagawatilal Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ77
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant was ordered to deposit process fee by 15-5-1996. He did it a day late on 16-5-1996 but his writ petition No. 676/96 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30-5-1996. He thereafter filed M.C.C. No. 354/96 for restoration of this petition which was also dismissed vide order dated 29-8-1996 on the ground that writ petition could not be restored where non-compliance of a peremptory Court order was involved.2. The matter raises an interesting issue viz :- Whether non-compliance of a peremptory procedural order passed by the Court would operate as a bar to the restoration of a dismissed writ petition.3. Appellant filed writ petition No. 676/96 alleging that his salary was wrongly reduced at his back. It came up for consideration on 9-5-1996 when the writ Court passed the following order :-'Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted and disposed of at motion hearing stage itself. P. F. by 15-5-1996 failing which the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »