Madhya Pradesh Court December 1998 Judgments
Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Rasik Bihari Joshi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ88
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner has raised a question that the respondent No. 1 Rasik Bihari Joshi had no right to file a complaint for the offences under Sections 494/120B, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code complaint can be lodged by the party aggrieved. Respondent No. 1 Rasik Bihari Joshi being the father of the party aggrieved, i.e. Manjulata, has no right to file complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Code'). Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that under the provisions of Section 198 of the Code the complaint can only be filed with the consent of the wife.2. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 Dinesh Kumar has married with Shushila Bai (Petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 204/98) during the subsistence of his marriage with the daughter of the complainant-respondent No. 1 Rasik Bihari Joshi.3. The question involved...
Tag this Judgment!Harsahay and anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1078
Shambhoo Singh, J.1. This order shall dispose of M.A. No. 128 of 1997 (Harsahay v. Ajay Kumar), M.A. No. 131 of 1997 (Veenabai v. Ajay Kumar) and M.A. No. 420 of 1997 (Kalabai v. Ajay Kumar) and cross-appeals M.A. Nos. 408, 553 and 410 of 1997 and No. 35 of 1998 filed by insurance company, as they arise out of common award dated 24.9.1996 passed by 1st Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mhow, in Claim Case Nos. 157, 156 and 151 of 1987 respectively whereby compensation of Rs. 27,000, Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 40,000 was awarded.2. The facts of the cases, in brief, are that on 23.11.1981 'Barat' party of Dinesh s/o Raghunath was travelling in bus No. MPN 7475 owned by non-applicant No. 1 Ajay Kumar, driven by non-applicant No. 2 Dwarka Prasad and insured with non-applicant No. 3. This bus was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed, as a result of which it turned turtle in Dharughat and went 40-50 feet deep into the valley. Many members of the Barat party including Kallu alias ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirpal Kaur and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ863
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This appeal is by the claimants who have been denied compensation on the ground that they have failed to prove that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of offending truck. Claimants are widow, two sons, a daughter and the father of Adeep Singh, deceased.2. It is the case of the claimants that on 13.8.1991, when Adeep Singh, deceased, was coming on his scooter bearing registration No. PCU 7420 near Supply Depot Barrier No. 6, Jalandhar Cantt., a military truck driven by Om Bahadur turned towards Jalandhar Cantt. from G.T. Road and dashed against the scooter of Adeep Singh. As a result of accident, Adeep Singh died on the spot. Claimants alleged that the military truck was being driven rashly and negligently. On appearance, respondents did not deny the accident and admitted that Adeep Singh died because of accident. However, the respondents denied that the military truck was being driven rashly and negligently. They pleaded that one eyewitness...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Vs. Dalip and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999MP66; 1999(2)MPLJ182
Khan, J. 1. Appellant allegedly suffered a fracture in his right hand and the doctor certify his partial disability at 8%. He filed claim case No. 176/92 and VIth M.A.C.T., Indore awarded him compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. He fell dissatisfied and filed M.A. No. 048/96 asserting that he was entitled to compensation of fixed amount of Rs. 25,000/- Under Section 140(2) irrespective of his 8% disability. His contention was overruled by the First Appellate Court. He has now filed this L.P.A. in a repeat exercise. 2. All that remained to be seen was whether Appellant was entitled to statutorily fixed amount of Rs. 25,000/- though his disability was partial and not permanent. The answer will depend upon the interpretation of Sections 140 and 142 of M.V. Act. Relevant portions of these sections arc extracted hereunder for proper appreciation:-- 'Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. (1) Whether death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted fr...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1999LC227(MP); 2000(116)ELT28(MP)
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Respondent No. 1 is a public limited company engaged amongst other things in manufacture of caustic soda for which it uses titanium anodes as an input. It claimed Modvat credit for Excise duty paid by it on purchase of titanium from 23-8-1986 to 29-4-1989 and refund of Rs. 43,96,116.42 on this count. The case set up was that though it had received such benefit earlier also up to 28-2-1982 pursuant to Notification No. 201/79 but it had somehow omitted to stake the claim for the period in question under the mistaken impression that metal anodes were not inputs within the terms of Rule 57A. But now that CEGAT had recently treated these as inputs under Rule 57 in Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector -1989 (41) E.L.T. 424 which decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Company case [1988 (33) E.L.T. 249], the company had woken up to file its claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act for refund of duty totalling Rs. 43,96,116.42. But...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1438
B.A. Khan, J.1. We are seized of a reference from Lord Chief Justice on :-'Whether bail application filed with Cr. A. No. 997/98 was to be treated as first bail application or not.'2. The issue arises in none-too happy circumstances. It all started with filing of Cr. A. No. 997/ 98 by appellant along with accompanying LA. No. 3002/98 under Section 389 Cr. P.C. praying for suspension of his sentence. The application was rejected by the concerned Roaster Bench (Chitre, J) by order dated 9-9-1998. Meanwhile there was a change in Roaster and Criminal Appeal Roaster went to Vyas, J. Appellant filed second application (LA. No. 3612/98) again under Section 389 Cr. P.C. perhaps to try his luck before the new Bench. This application was directed to be listed before the same bench who had decided the first application (Chitre, J.) The matter was placed before Chitre (J) who directed Registrar to follow general roaster. The Registrar treating the second application as bail application listed it b...
Tag this Judgment!Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. and anr. Vs. Dev Prakash Shrivas and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ663MP; 1999(1)MPLJ466
Mathur, C.J.1. Both the references are similar in nature and therefore they are disposed by this common order.Both these references have been made by the learned single Judge expressing his grave doubt about the ratio laid down in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Prakash Sharma and Ors. (1990-I-LLJ-551) (MP). The learned single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to answer the following question of law:'Whether the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 will be applicable to the services which are governed by the Rules mentioned in Section 2(2) and also to those employees where Recruitment Rules have been framed?Hence, the present larger Bench was constituted to answer the aforesaid question of law.2. In order to dispose of this reference facts given in W.P. No. 350 of 1997 are taken into consideration. The present petition filed by Superintending Engineer. Public Works Department, Chambal Ayacut...
Tag this Judgment!Shivdevi and ors. Vs. Surja Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ583
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff, Ramlakhan.2. Perused the record.3. The appellants feel aggrieved by the decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereunder dismissing their appeal, the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit has been upheld.4. Ramlakhan, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had filed the suit giving rise to this appeal seeking a declaration that he be declared to be the heir of Shivnarayan, deceased on the basis of the 'Will' dated 10-6-1975, executed by him in his favour. He also prayed for a direction for the recording of his name in the revenue records as bhumiswami of the agricultural holdings in dispute cancelling the orders passed by the revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also claimed against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Molai S/O Ramgareeb Kol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ558
R.P. Gupta, J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of Cr. Reference No. 4/97 and Cr. Appeal No. 525/97.2. The references have been made in judgment dated 18-2-1997 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No. 130/96. The two accused Santosh and Molai have been found guilty of committing offences of gang rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code and for committing murder of the victim Ku. Naveen daughter of R. S. Somvanshi an Assistant Jailor, in Qr. No. 2 in the colony of Central Jail, Rewa on , 20-2-1996. Both have been sentenced to death for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they are to further undergo R.I. for 2 months each. They have been further found guilty of offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 200/- ea...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Devi and ors. Vs. Shivdevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ51
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants.2. Perused the record.3. This appeal was heard along with Second Appeal No. 316 of 1996, Smt. Shivdevi and Ors. v. Surja Devi and Ors..4. The plaintiff's suit had been dismissed by the trial Court and the decree of the trial Court had been upheld in appeal.5. The second appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed vide a separate judgment and order disposing of the second appeal No. 316 of 1996, today.6. The present appellants who were the defendants in the suit feel aggrieved by the finding returned by the Courts below against them holding that Devidayal, who was their common ancestor had ceased to be a member of the family of the deceased, Shivnarayan in view of the registered adoption deed dated 19-7-1941, whereunder he had become a member of another family.7. Both the Courts below have held that the adoption was duly established and acted upon. It was evidenced by a duly executed 'adoption deed' date...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »