Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Mohammad Sharif S/O Abdul Sattar and ors. Vs. Kesharsingh Hirasingh Th ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ184
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-8-1998 in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/98 by Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, whereby the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1995 in Civil Suit No. 114-A/1991 by II Civil Judge, Class-II, Waraseoni, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellants/defendants, was affirmed.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction of appellants/defendants on various grounds under Section 12(1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). It was alleged that the appellants/defendants are the tenants of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit-premises, situate at Ward No. 6, Katangi, Tahsil Waraseoni and were in arrears of rent. The suit accommodation was required for starting the cycle shop and residence of the respondent/plaintiff, and that he had no other suitable accommodation for the purpose. It was also averred that the suit-house had b...
Kanker Roadways and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ152
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The petitioners made an application under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia pleading that though the route between Jagdalpur to Kondagaon is covered under the scheme, but as the respondent/State Road Transport Corporation was not operating under the said scheme on the said route, the'petitioners were entitled to a temporary permit on the strength of the proviso appended to Section 104 of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority holding that as the route is covered under the scheme and State Road Transport Corporation was operating as many as 62 trips covering the area under the scheme, and as there was no felt need for the public at large, the petitioners were not entitled to temporary permit. Against the said order of rejection of the application, the petitioners/operators have filed this writ petition.2. At the threshold, Shri Dhande, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has raised an objection relating t...
Smt. Prabharani Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP223
Dipak Misra, J.1. Pregnability of the decision dated 14-8-97 passed in Writ Petition No. 1378/97 by a learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question by the appellant invoking the jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6, the Vice-president and a Councillor of Deori Municipality respectively approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to hold election in accordance with Sub-section (4) of the Section 43 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereainafter referred to as 'the Act'), as a vacancy had occurred in the office of the President in the Municipal Council due to the resignation of the President, the respondent No. 4 therein. The fact situation as have been uncurtained in the writ petition are that an election of the councillors was held in the year 1994 for the Municipal Council, Deori (in short 'the Council') and subsequently in January, 1995...
Jayant Prakash Giri Vs. Sobha Tahanguria Joge and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1329
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'), against the award dated 11.7.1997, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Claim Case No. 68 of 1995.2. The facts of this case may be stated in a narrow compass. On 21.9.1995, the respondent No. 1 suffered a road accident when she collided with Matador No. MP 24-C2602 while travelling on a Luna No. MP 24-A1133. The respondent No. 1 was a Laboratory Technician by profession and she used to travel to Government Hospital, Durg by the aforesaid Luna. At the time of the accident, the respondent No. 1 was pregnant and was carrying a child of three months in her womb. The consequence of the accident was that the respondent No. 1 suffered injuries on her body and had suffered abortion on 9.10.1995 in the hospital on account of nervous shock she received.3. Thereupon, the respondent No. 1 preferred a claim before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation amounting to R...
Makhan Lal Sonker Vs. Dwarka Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1202
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Being dissatisfied with the award dated 21.8.1995 passed in M.V.C. No. 479 of 1994 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Factual matrix as has been exposited is that on 17.2.1989 at about 10.30 p.m. when claimant-appellant was going from Malviya Chowk to Karamchand Chowk the respondent No. 1, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MIK 2448, dashed the concerned jeep against the claimant. It was alleged that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Because of the accident the claimant sustained multiple fractures on his left leg and various other injuries on other parts of the body. The claimant was got hospitalised/ admitted in Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur and availed treatment from 17.2.89 to 3.8.1989. It was also put forth by the claimant that the treatment continued up to 4.11.1990 and h...
Himalaya Drug Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Arya Aushadhi Pharmaceutica ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: AIR1999MP110
Khan, J.1. Appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical preparations, drugs and chemicals. So is the respondent. Both are fighting it out on a Trade Mark for the last twenty five years or so.2. Appellant claims that it was given right to use Trade Mark of 'SAPTLIN' and 'SEPTILIN', a medicine used for treating tonsillitis and other respiratory disorders by its licensors M/s. Himalaya Drug Co. vide registered user agreements dated 29-6-1971 and 9-6-1972. It learnt somewhere in 1973 that respondent had also launched a preparation called 'PEPTILIN' which was used to cure peptic ulcer and other connected diseases. A notice was accordingly issued to it to desist from doing so and on its failure C.O.S. No. 1-A was filed for perpetual injunction restraining it from using Trade Mark 'PEPTILIN' and for other incidental damages and destruction of all material etc. The suit was resisted by respondent on various grounds leading to framing of a number of issues of which only issue No. 1(c) which is...
Ramesh Kateha and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4243
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Individual liberty is a priceless treasure and no one would like to lose it for all the wealth in the world. In the drama of life liberty plays a highly significant role and no protagonist would like to abdicate it even for attaining longevity till eternity. Life without liberty is a body without a soul. But the core question that arises for consideration in this application for cancellation of bail is whether the adroit efforts an ingenious attempts of an accused, to obtain liberty, be ignored at the cost of impropriety. To elaborate whether an accused should be conferred allowances to make false declaration and get the concession of bail and whether he should be exonerated solely on the foundation that he has enjoyed liberty for some length of time.2. The essential facts which require to be stated for disposal of this application for cancellation of bail are that the respondent No. 2, Brijkishore Kateha, an accused in Crime No. 62/ 96 instituted for offences pu...
Chaudhary Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanghi Brothers (indore) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas466(MP)
B.A. Khan, J.1. Order dated January 31, 1995, passed by the Western Region Bench of the Company Law Board condoning the delay in filing the particulars of charge in Forms Nos. 8 and 13 by respondent No. 1 and to grant the company extension of time up to May 15, 1990, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act. 2. Shorn of all details, it transpires that the appellant-company executed a deed of assignment dated February 15, 1990, for assignment of certain rights of ground floor of immovable property called 'Chetak Chamber', situate at 13-14, RNT Marg, Indore, admeasuring about 12,000 square feet, valuing approximately Rs. 1,22,25,000 in favour of respondent No. 1. For some reason it did not file particulars of charge in Forms Nos. 8 and 13 with the Registrar of Companies constraining respondent No. 1 to do so on May 15, 1990, under Section 125 of the Companies Act. The Registrar, vide his communication dated January 7, 1992, required the respondent-co...
Ku. Rajni and ors. Vs. Shankar Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC47
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the applicants who are the defendants in civil suit filed by the respondent under Sections 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 13(1)(iii) thereof.2. The non-applicant/respondent claims that the marriage of the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant has not been performed completely in accordance with rights and customs of the community and, therefore, the marriage was not valid. He also claimed in the alternative divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the applicant No. 1 Ku. Rajni was suffering from epilepsy. The claim of the non-applicant was that the applicant No. 1 was granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. This amount was not paid to her despite the order dated 1.10.1997 passed by the Trial Court. The other ground for transfer is that the applicant No. ...
Smt. Archana Singh Vs. Dharampal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC113
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act (henceforth 'the Act'), filed by the wife, Smt. Archana Singh, against the order dated 13th of February, 1997 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1995.2. In this appeal, the appellant does not challenge the decree of divorce granted by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant had deserted the respondent without any reasonable and probable cause and she was not performing her marital duties. It was held that this action on the part of the appellant amounted to mental cruelty and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce.3. The appellant filed an application under Section 25 of the Act claiming that she was entitled to permanent alimony, in case, a decree for divorce is granted. Section 25(1) of the Act provides that any party to a case under the Hindu Marriage Act, at the time of passing of the decree or subsequent thereto may...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »