Madhya Pradesh Court August 2000 Judgments
Banne Singh Vs. Proprietor, Ambar Hawai Chhappal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC26; [2000(87)FLR830]; (2001)IIILLJ256MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Appellant is challenging the dismissal of his application by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court Indore) on December 9, 1996 in claim case No. 57/92, by filing this appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act. In short the facts are these:2. Appellant filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, alleging inter alia that on June 27, 1991 while he was working with the respondent No. 1 in his factory he suffered an injury in his right hand. It was alleged that the accident occurred when he was working on one automatic mixing machine. It was further alleged that accident occurred during the course of the employment and it also arose out of the employment. It was further alleged that appellant (claimant) was drawing a sum of Rs. ....... per month from the respondent No. 1 and that he was hardly aged 25 years. It was further alleged that as a result of the accident, the appellant (claimant) suffered extensive injuries in h...
Tag this Judgment!Munnalal Roshan Lal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1080MP; 2000(4)MPHT327
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Since the controversy involved and the questions raised in both the writ petitions are common, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions which have been heard together are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed by the legal authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereunder their claim raised under Section 20 of the said Act for the recovery of the balance due on account of payment of amount less than the minimum rates or wages had been rejected holding that they were not entitled to any relief.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate, representing the State-respondents and have carefully perused the record.4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions, lie in a narrow compass: The petitioners had been employed in the establishment of the respondents on daily wa...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Agarwal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT70
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being heard and disposed of finally.2. The applicant was prosecuted under Section 394 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and he is being tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 340/2000. The case was fixed for evidence on 7-6-2000 and the case could not be decided within sixty days of the date of Fixing the case for evidence for the first time. Thereupon, an application was made under Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail alleging that sixty days have already expired on 7-8-2000 and the applicant is entitled to grant of bail under sub-section (6) of Section 437' of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The learned Trial Magistrate rejected the application for bail stating that on 7-6-2000, the case could not be taken-up because the record of the case was summoned ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivshankar and Others Vs. Sarjeet Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT449
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'the Code') the petitioners-claimants have called in question defensibility of the order dated 9-5-2000 passed in MJC No. 14/99 by the learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.2. The fact as have been unfolded are that the petitioners as claimantsfiled an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') forming the subject-mailer of Claim Case No. 44/98. The aforesaid claim case was posted on 5-7-1997 for adducing evidence. As on that date the claimants failed to appear, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for restoration of the claim case. It was putforth in the application that the claimant No. 1, Shivshankar was suffering from diarrhoea and fever. He filed an affidavit in support of his application. The Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Soneram Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT220
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the applicant required this Court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 83/2000, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihora.2. It appears that the applicant has been charged with offences under Section 287 as well as Section 338 of JPC on the basis of charge-sheet filed by Majhouli Police Station in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihora. The FIR filed along with the charge-sheet shows that the applicant had given a thrasher on hire on 17-3-2000 at about 10.00 to 10.30 P.M. to Smt. Pramod Devi Paliwal. There was an accident in which Prahlad Nai suffered an injury. His left hand got severed from the wrist joint. It appears that the charge against the applicant is that he was required to supervise running of the machinery himself or to appoint some competent person. In failing to do so he was culpable within the meaning of Section 287 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudakshna Vs. Rajendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC168
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. Wife has come up in appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment/decree dated 30.6.1995, passed in Civil Suit No. 157/93, by learned IXth Additional District Judge, Indore. Facts lie in a narrow compass.2. Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant (wife) inter alia on the allegations of cruelty. This petition was contested by the appellant (wife). While contesting the plea of cruelty, it was alleged by her that she is entitled to get her back several items which were given to her by her parents in the marriage and which according to her constitutes her exclusive Streedhan property. In effect, therefore, while opposing the plea of divorce, she claimed a relief of return of her Streedhan property in case if the decree for divorce is passed in favour of husband (respondent).3. Parties led evidence in the trial. The only issue that was focussed attention and that was also framed...
Tag this Judgment!Arif Rasid Khan Vs. Sabiha Bano
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT123; 2002(2)MPLJ375
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the applicant challenges the order dated 9th August, 2000, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal RevisionNo. 125/2000.2. The applicant was aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 119/99. Lear1ned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 31-1-2000.3. It appears that non-applicant Sabiha Bano filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') claiming inter alia the deferred Mahr amounting to Rs. 10,786/- and other claims.4. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is aggrieved by the grant of aforesaid amount towards Mahr or Dower. The argument of the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Baboo Ali and Others Vs. Mushtak Ahmad and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT90; 2001(3)MPLJ345
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendants/petitioners have called in question the legal validity of the order dated 10-5-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Kotma in Civil Suit No. 98-A/98.2. The facts as have been unfurled are that the non-applicants as plaintiffs initiated civil action against Baboo All, the father of the present petitioners, for eviction and arrears of rent. Baboo Ali entered contest and disputed the claim of the non-applicant by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and also questioning the title of the non-applicants. Baboo Ali also claimed title in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit Baboo Ali expired, and thereafter, the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives. After the present petitioners were substituted an objection was raised by them that ot...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ900
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 6.12.1999 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Umaria, in Claim Case No. 5 of 1999.2. The accident took place on 10.10.95 at 12 noon. Claimant Pawan Kumar suffered fracture 3' above ankle, when jeep No. MPZ 6742 driven rashly and negligently hit scooter on which claimant Pawan Kumar (aged about 18 years) was a pillion rider. The claimant sustained injuries on other parts of body also. He was shifted to hospital at Jabalpur and was treated for some days. As a result of this accident, there is shortening to the extent 1.5 cm. Compensation of Rs. 13,60,680 has been claimed.3. The non-claimants have denied the accident. They stated that the scooter was being driven at a fast speed and due to which, the claimant could not control the scooter and struck against the wall resulting in an accident.4. The Tribunal found substance in the plea taken by the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,43,680. The award has been challeng...
Tag this Judgment!Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ332MP
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. These two cases are proposed to be decided by this order since they arise out of the same accident but different awards.2. The claimants were labourers of Irrigation Department (respondent No. 1). On the date of accident, which took place on December 29, 1992, they were deployed with Dumper No. CPZ 7867. The allegation is that the Dumper was being driven rashly and negligently as a result of which it overturned, resulting in injuries to the occupants which included two claimants. Khuman Singh sustained fracture of left thigh. Khuman Singhwas 25 years old at the time of the accident and disability is 50%. He has been awarded Rs. 38,500/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Puranlal was 30 years old at the time of accident. He sustained fracture of thigh and bone injury in left foot. Disability is 45%. He has been awarded Rs. 56,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »