Madhya Pradesh Court December 1999 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.
Chintaram and ors. Vs. Smt. Pushibai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT67; 2000(2)MPLJ196
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C..2. The land in dispute belonged to Lusru. He had no issue from his first wife. He married Laxminbai in 1947-48 in churi form. This marriage having taken place before the year 1955 was valid even in the presence of the first wife. Both the Courts below have held that there was a caste custom which permitted the husband to remarry if he had no issue from the first wife. Both the Courts have concurrently found that this was a valid marriage. The first appellate Court on the basis of evidence on record has held that the original plaintiff Tulsiram was son of Lusru through Laxminbai. The trial Court had held that Tulsiram was a child of 1 1/2 months when Lusru married to Laxminbai.After perusal of the evidence this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the first appellate Court is correct. It was difficult to expect direct evidence of an event which took place 40 years ago. Tulsiram was always treated ...
Keshuram Through Lrs. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC473
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1991 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 25B/88, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' suit for grant of compensation for the damage caused to their agricultural land as also the mango trees standing in the said agricultural land.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs are the owners and recorded Bhumiswami of the agricultural land situated in village Bargarh, Tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam bearing Survey No. 120/667, Area 0.101 hectare and Survey No. 121, area 2.061, hectares. It is stated in the plaint that on the southern side of the aforesaid agricultural land, three fruit bearing mango trees are standing and owned by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that in 1984, State of M.P. through the P.W.D., District Ratlam started the work of construction of Bargarh-Upparwada road for the use of the public. The proposed road w...
Shyamlal S/O Chinta Ram Vs. Divisional Railway Manager and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ527MP; 2000(1)MPHT570; 2000(2)MPLJ284
ORDER1. The appellant, aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur dated April 2, 1998 passed in Case No. 15/W.C.A./97 (N.F.), has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner, appealed against and condone the delay in filing the claim-petition before the Labour Court.2. The case involves a short question whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for getting the decision on the claim-petition on merit, which was dismissed as barred by time by 60 days.3. An application was made along with the claim-petition for condonation of delay and for deciding the claim-petition on merit. The said application was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The objection to the application was only to the effect that in the application, the claimant has not given explanati...
Sarda Yarn Agency Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (i) and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)MPLJ237; [2000]119STC354(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Both the writ petitions being interlinked were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts stated in W.P. No. 5397 of 1998 are adumbrated herein.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. The M.P. General Sales Tax Act was repealed in the year, 1994 and new Act, i.e., Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') came into force on April 1, 1995. It is averred in the writ petition that as per the provisions of the new Act Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh has been empowered to make assessment in respect of an assessee, but in contravention of the provisions of the statute assessments are being made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (I), Khandwa, respondent No. 1, herein, and therefore, the initiation of the assessment proceedings by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction.It is averred in ...
Durgabai Vs. Bhagatram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC519
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J. 1. In view of provisions of Section 403, Cr.P.C. Court need not wait for the parties because whether the party should be heard or not is the point which pertains to domain of discretion of the Court. In Criminal Revision the revisional Court has to examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which is under challenge.2. The matter revolves around the allegation of the petitioner Durgabai that her husband Bhagatram married another woman when his married wife Durgabai was alive. According to her complaint, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 attempted the respondent No. 1 for committing the second marriage and they were present when the second marriage took place. The trial Judge took the cognizance of the complaint. The said order passed by the Trial Court was assailed by the respondents in revision petition which was decided by IInd A.S.J., Mandsaur in Cr. R. No. 232/ 93. The learned A.S.J. concluded that the act of taking cognizance of the said complaint and co...
Smt. Rambha Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT573
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 5-3-97, passed in Claim Case No. OA/620/96 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal as having no jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. Issue No. 1 was as 'Whether the applicant proves that the applicant's husband death was owing to the accident as contemplated under Section 124 and Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 ?' and in this issue the Tribunal considered the position regarding its jurisdiction analysing the provision of Section 123(a) which defines the word 'accident' as an accident of the nature described in Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 124 which relates to extent of liability is extracted below :'124. Extent of liability:-- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between tr...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Rudra Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT420
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-1-1998 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 527/94 whereby the Tribunal quashed the order dated 27th December, 1993 by which Rudra Pratap Singh was compulsorily retired from service.2. The case called out and taken up in the revised cause- list. Counsel for the petitioner is present. Counsel for the respondents are not present.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-State.Learned counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions. Firstly, that even after person is promoted to a higher post can be proceeded for his delinquency committed during the period anterior to his promotion. Secondly, that the service record of the petitioner for last five years was considered and considering that record the power was exercised by the authority under Rule 42 (B) (1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the interference by the Tribunal wit...
Radheshyam Vs. Sardar Preetam Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT5
J.G. Chitre, J.1. These appeals are hereby decided by a common judgment.2. The matters are revolving around the same property situated in Mahesh Nagar, Indore bearing No. 5/43 consisting of three rooms and a verandah on ground floor. The landlord Radheshyam brought a suit against respondent Sardar Preetam Singh which was numbered as 96-A/80. Landlord Radheshyam prayed for decree of eviction against respondent in context with provisions of Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (b), 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (i) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience). The trial Court dismissed the suit of landlord Radheshyam so far as his claim based on 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (i) of the Act. Landlord had abandoned his claim for eviction in context with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit of the landlord Radheshyam in context with provisions of Section 12 (1) (e). Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant S...
Rambha Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ2129; 2000(1)MPLJ384
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 5.3.1997, passed in Claim Case No. OA/620 of 1996 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal as having no jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. The issue No. 1 was: 'Whether the applicant proves that the applicant's husband's death was owing to the accident as contemplated under Sections 124 and 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?' and in this issue, the Tribunal considered the position regarding its jurisdiction analysing the provisions of Section 123(a) which defines the word 'accident' as an accident of the nature described in Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 124 which relates to extent of liability is extracted below:124. Extent of liability.-When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between tra...
Jageshwar Ramsahay Ahir Vs. Parmeshwar Ramprasad Yadav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP223; 2000(3)MPLJ185
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. by the defendant.The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 13-5-1996 at the time of admission of this appeal:--(1) 'Whether the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the respondents had perfected their title by adverse possession is vitiated on account of the fact that it has not considered the fact that there are no consistent entries in the various Khasra, filed by the respondents'? (2) 'Whether the lower Appellate Court was entitled to consider the entry made by the Patwari in remark column in view of the decision given in Churamani v. Ramadhar, 1991 MPLJ 311'? (3) 'Whether the tower Appellate Court has rightly considered Ex. P-11, a judgment delivered under Section 447 of I.P.C. for coming to conclusion that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were in possession of the suit land'? 2. The lands in dispute are Khasra Nos. 16, 17 and 18/1 area 0.18, 0.45 and 0.08 acre respectively o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »