Madhya Pradesh Court September 2000 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.
indra Bai and ors. Vs. Keshavram Dhobi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1992
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, dated 30.9.1997, in Claim Case No. 70 of 1996.2. Claimants are widow and children of deceased Pardeshi Sahu who died as a result of injuries suffered by him on 24.3.1996, at about 8.30 p.m. when mini bus No. MP 23-D 4704 hit his bicycle on Kura-Patewa Road. The matter was reported to the police and Crime No. 32 of 1996 registered against respondent No. 1. The mini bus was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.3. Defence taken is that the accident was not caused by respondent No. 1. It is also stated that this vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently. The insurance company has stated that it was not intimated about the accident. As the vehicle was not being plied according to terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, they are not liable for the payment of compensation. All these defences have been rejected by the Tribunal and compensation ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulabsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC595
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Insurance Company has felt aggrieved of an award dated 25.11.1993, passed in Claim Case No. 1/91 by learned M.A.C.T., Mandsaur, holding them liable to pay the compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 (claimant) for the injuries suffered by him in an accident and hence filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.2. The only question, therefore, that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in holding Insurance Company liable. So far as respondent No. 1 (claimant) is concerned, he has not questioned the legality of an award by claiming more compensation than what is awarded by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection and hence an award to that extent awarding compensation has become final. The only question is whether any case is made out for exoneration of Insurance Company?3. The only defence of Insurance Company was that driver of offending vehicle (auto riksha) which was insured with the Company and which dashed to cla...
Helen Ekka and ors. Vs. Anil Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1982
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in M.V.C. No. 27 of 1997.2. Jebonius Ekka (deceased) was coming to his house along with his daughter Sushma Ekka on a bicycle. When they reached near Ghosal Complex, Chandan Colony, truck No. MOJ 1448 came at a high speed and dashed against the bicycle. The deceased Jebonius Ekka sustained injury in the accident and died instantaneously. The truck was owned by Anil Sharma, driven by Ram Dulare Choudhary and insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident. The allegation is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the truck. The claimants are legal heirs of the deceased, who was Senior Auditor (Signals) in the Pay and Accounts Office (Army) drawing gross pay of Rs. 5,985 per month. The claim for Rs. 8,48,065 has been made along with interest.3...
Uco Bank, Guna Vs. Smt. Laxmi Ojha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT279
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant.2. The learned counsel for the applicant has produced the copy of application filed under Section 23Aof the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.3. The defendant-tenant-applicant is aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna, rejecting its application seeking amendment in the written statement filed by it opposing the application of the non-applicant-respondent seeking an order for the eviction of the defendant from the premises in dispute which was claimed to be bonafide required by the landlady for meeting out the urgent necessity disclosed in the application.4. The application under Section 23-A of the Act had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent asserting that her husband had died and in order to meet the expenses for maintaining the family and the expenses for getting her minor son educated she wanted to establish her own cloth business in the premises in dispute which has ...
Khurshid Ali Vs. KutubuddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP196
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1999 in Civil Suit No. 21-A 1994 by II Additional District Judge, Ambikapur (District Surguja), whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed and the counter-claim of the respondents 1 and 2 for possession of the suit-property was decreed.2. Undisputably, Anupa Bibi was the owner of disputed land bearing Khasra No. 620 area 0.316 hectares situate at village Juna-Lakhanpur District Surguja. A Kutcha house is constructed on a portion of the suit-land in an area of about 5 decimals, while the remaining land of the above khasra number is lying vacant. It is also not in dispute that Anupa Bibi sold the suit-lands in favour of respondent No. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 5-6-1961. The respondent No. 2 is the son of respondent No. 13. The case of the plaintiff/appellant stated in brief is that his father, late Mazhar Ali was in occupation of the suit-land since 1951-52....
Balram and Another Vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT330; 2001(3)MPLJ363
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. It was alleged that the land was gifted to the temple of Shri Deo Hanumanji in Village Richhai. This land was given by the trustees or Sar-varakar of the temple to Ramesh Kumar in Adhiya. It was alleged that Ramesh Kumar got his name mutated as the owner of the property and thereby committed offence registered under Sections' 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the non-applicant No. 1 Aswani Kumar, who was serving as Naib-Tehsildar at the relevant time, had also aided and abetted the crime committed by Ramesh Kumar, the main accused. Initially, the non-applicant No. 1 was not made an accused in the case. After the evidence was recorded including that of the non-applicant No. 1 himself, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the applicant for making the non-applicant No. 1, Aswani Kumar as a co-accused in the case. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on merits. It is apparent t...
Digvijay Singh and ors. Vs. Arvind Singh Bhadoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT474
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J.1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 28-12-1999 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 7975/99 directing that the complaint filed by the respondent be registered for offence under Sections 109 and 325, IPC against the petitioner No. 1, and under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are : The respondent/complainant Arvind Singh Bhadoriya is alleged to be a social worker and resides in the office of Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, Immami Gate, Bhopal. It is alleged that on 3-4-1999 at about 11.30 a.m., a function to celebrate 150 years of journalism in Madhya Pradesh was being organized at Sanskriti Bhawan, Bhopal which was to be inaugurated by the Chief Minister Digvijay Singh, the petitioner No. 1. When the Chief Minister, the petitioner No. 1, rose to address t...
Murlidhar and 3 ors. Vs. Mathura Prasad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT313; 2001(2)MPLJ72
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 19-9-1995 in Civil Appeal No. 57-A/1992 by Fifth Additional District Judge, Sagar, whereby the appeal has been dismissed as abated.2. The relevant facts necessary for decision of this appeal, stated in brief, are : The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Mathura Prasad purchased the suit-property by registered sale-deed dated 16-9-1971 from defendant No. 5 Gajadhar Prasad. The suit-house was said to belong to the Joint Hindu Family property consisting of the vendor Gajadhar Prasad as well as his five other brothers, who were all made defendants in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed that the Joint Family property be partitioned and the suit-house purchased by the plaintiff Mathura Prasad may be allotted in the share of his vendor Gajadhar Prasad, defendant No. 5, who holds 1/6th share in the Joint Hindu Family property.3. The suit was resisted by defendant Nos. 2 & 3. Defendant Nos. 1, ...
Pushpabai and ors. Vs. Ramotibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1341
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) the claimants/applicants have called in question the defensibility of the order dated 10.3.2000 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 62 of 1999.2. The facts as have been depicted are that the applicants as claimants filed the aforesaid case against the non-applicants claiming compensation of Rs. 8,40,000. It is stated in the claim petition that the applicant No. 1 is the widow of late Bhikan Ram and the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children. It is pleaded that the late Bhikan Ram was a co-owner of the tractor along with the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4. It is also set forth that he was engaged as a driver in the vehicle and was getting Rs. 1,500 towards his salary. That apart, he was also getting Rs. 1,500 from his agricultural property. It is further set forth that the said vehicle is insured with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›