Madhya Pradesh Court July 2000 Judgments
Ramratan Yadav Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT148
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. This petition challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, dated July 15, 1999, in O.A. No. 150/99, whereby petition has been dismissed and following this, review application No. 21/99 has also been dismissed by order dated September 6, 1999. It would be necessary to narrate short facts of the case for appreciation of the question raised for determination by the petitioner.2. Petitioner possess Bachelor's Degree in Arts and Master's Degree in Physical Education. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents, he applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher. He was selected by the respondents and appointment order dated December 6, 1997 (Annexure P-3) was issued in his favour.3. After the appointment in the Kendriya Vidyalaya as Physical Education Teacher, the petitioner was called upon to fill in an attestation form. In Column 12 (i), petitioner mentioned 'No' instead of making mention of a pending criminal case against...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumari Pandey and anr. Vs. Sanjay Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ24
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, dated 22.2.1995 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 51 of 1993.2. Santosh Kumar Pandey was employed with National Fertilizers Ltd. as Junior Stenographer. On 4.9.1992, he was coming on scooter No. MOC 5412 along with one Rajesh Kumar Pandey towards Jyoti Talkies when minibus No. MP 04-F 603 driven by Kunji Lal Sahu rashly and negligently and owned by Sanjay Kumar Jain and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., dashed against the scooter. As a result of this accident, both the occupants of scooter died. Case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered for prosecution. Claim for Rs. 50,42,000 was preferred.3. Driver and owner of the minibus have been proceeded ex parte having failed to appear and defend the case. Insurance company has stated that minibus was insured with it and it has been denied that it was being driven rashly and negligen...
Tag this Judgment!Nanhoo Lal and anr. Vs. Parvat Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ905
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 28.11.94 of the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, passed in M.C.C. No. 19 of 1993.2. Accident took place on 28.9.1992 at 6.30 p.m. when vehicle Tata truck bearing registration No. MP-04-8173 driven rashly and negligently by the driver hit deceased Ajab Singh who was going to poultry farm on cycle resulting in serious injuries to him. Deceased was shifted to hospital where he died on 30.9.1992. Case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the truck.3. Claimants submit that the deceased was 22 years old at the time of accident. He was employed in poultry farm. He was earning Rs. 800 per month. That apart, he was cultivating land on lease and was earning Rs. 800 per month out of it. Yearly income has been stated to be Rs. 19,200 and it is pointed out that the deceased was likely to earn more in future and they were dependent on him. Due to his death, they h...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwant Birla and Others Vs. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University and Ot ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT253
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Petitioners are studying Master of Computer Application course in Government Engineering College affiliated to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, M.P. Through this writ petition, they have challenged the legality of Clause 13 of the Ordinance framed by the University in relation to Master of Computer Application Semester Examination under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. For facility of reference, it is pertinent to quote Clause 13 of the Ordinance as under:--'13. A candidate shall be eligible to appear in the succeeding semester examination only after having passed the preceding semester examination, provided that if a candidate fails in any one theory paper in any one semester examination, he will be promoted to the next semester course. A candidate failing in the theory paper of any semester shall he eligible to take examination of the paper in which he has failed along with the next examination of the concerned se...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC163(MP)
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner/Western Railways are aggrieved by the demand notice dated November 15, 1999 issued by respondent No. 3-- Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-I, Ratlam, under Section 33(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994.2. The petitioners have sought to impugn the demand as according to them it is contrary to the mandate of Article 285(1) of the Constitution which prohibits imposition of any tax by the State Government against the Union of India. The respondents have, however, defended the impugned demand and it was contended that the petitioners were dealers within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Adhiniyam, 1994 and were liable to be assessed for payment of commercial tax. A preliminary objection was also raised that since the dispute is between the Government of India and the State Government, it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under Article 131 of the Constitution.3. As regards the preliminary objection, it may be...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pappu Bai Vs. Sajan Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC730
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Mother of three children (all minors) has come up in appeal under Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, challenging the order passed by the learned IIIrd A.D.J., Indore, in Guardian Case No. 159/ 96, dated 17.11.1997. By impugned order, the learned trial Judge has been pleased to allow the application made by the father (respondent) under Section 25 ibid and has directed the appellant i.e. mother to handover the custody of three daughters to him (respondent-husband). Facts are these :2. Out of wedlock between appellant and respondent, three children (two daughters and a son) were born, Chanchal -15 years, Sheetal -11 years and son -5 years (age at the time of making application in 1998). Unfortunately, differences arose between wife and husband (appellant and respondent) to this extent that it resulted in their separation. Both started living separately. The case of wife (appellant herein) was that husband i.e. father of three children was cruel to her and childr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Dalke and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT115
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. These revision petitions, seven in number, filed on behalf of the various petitioner/accused persons, against the Order dated 28th March, 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (under Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, are heard analogously and being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners have preferred these revision petitions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Order dated 28th March, 2000 passed in Special Case No. 1 of 1999 by the learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur by which charges have been framed against all 63 accused persons under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC and in the alternative Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B, IPC.3. In these cases some public servants like Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT507; 2001(2)MPLJ21
S.S. Jha, J.1. Appellants are convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution, on 19.11.91 at about 7.00 O'clock in the morning Thakurdas, Sarpanch was returning from the field of Lakhansingh after attending the call of nature; then he saw that appellants Santoshsingh, Karansingh and Mehthansingh had surrounded his brother Meghsingh. Appellant Santoshsingh said that he has murdered his brother Radheshyam and thrown his body in the well of Darua Gadariya; now we will finish you. Accused Santoshsingh gave a farsa blow to Meghsingh which hit him on right mandible; accused Mehthansingh gave a farsa blow which hit Meghsingh on the right temporal region. Accused Karansingh gave another blow which hit him on the upper portion of the head and Meghsingh fell on the ground. Then, Karansingh gave two blows by axe on the head of Meghsingh. In between Complainant Thakurdas's father Dhansingh, Phupha Birje, Uttam Jamadar and other villagers reached the spot and accu...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar HussaIn Vs. Shantilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: I(2003)ACC421
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Claimant is the appellant in this appeal. He is aggrieved by the award rendered by the learned Member of Tribunal awarding him less compensation for the injuries which he sustained. In all, he was awarded Rs. 13,000/-. According to claimant, it is less. He wants more and hence he is in appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. The impugned award is dated 21.4.2000, passed by learned Ilnd A.M.A.C.T., Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 147/97.2. The only issue involved in appeal is whether compensation awarded to claimant is adequate or inadequate. The other issues such as negligence or liability are not in dispute nor urged. Rather they are in favour of appellant and not being assailed by the respondents either in cross objection or in appeal, they have become final and need not be gone into nor discussed.3. The injury sustained by claimant in the accident was in his left leg. The Tribunal was of the view that accident in question occured in 1992 but the claimant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Resham Bai Vs. Shakuntalabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC724
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected MA being MA 8/98 as both these appeals arise out of one case and questions the legality and validity of one impugned order. The impugned order is dated 12.8.1997 passed by ADJ, Kukshi in two succession cases being Case No. 3/ 96 and 4/96. This appeal and other connected appeal is preferred under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act to challenge the common order dated 12.8.1987 passed in aforementioned 2 cases. Facts in brief need mention. They lie in a narrow campass.2. One Mangilal by cast Tribe (Bhilala) was working as peon in Co-operative Bank at a place called Kukshi in District Dhar. He died on 1.2.1995. He had to his credit some amount-such as gratuity, family pension, G.P.F., family benefit fund etc.3. On his death, as many as five ladies came forward to claim the aforesaid amount. One Rashambai (appellant) claiming to be his legally married wife applied to the Court bein...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »