Madhya Pradesh Court August 2001 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.
Ram Prasad Mavai and ors. Vs. Hari Singh Tomar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT364
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This petition is field challenging the order Annexure P-l passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby the Commissioner entertained the revision against convening a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Morena. The Meeting was convened by the Prescribed Authority on 8-6-2001.2. The question involved in this case is whether the Court should interfere with the consideration of motion of no-confidence.3. Brief facts of the case are that under Section 28 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'), twenty Panchas of Janpad Panchayat have submitted intention to bring motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Morena vide Annexure P-2. An order was passed by the Collector, District Morena on 29-5-2001 being Prescribed Authority that meeting shall be convened to consider motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat on...
Ram Kawal Yadav Vs. Pratibha Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2002MP44; 2001(4)MPHT277; 2002(2)MPLJ30
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against order dated 8-2-1999 in Guardian Case No. 2 of 1998 by 1st Additional District Judge, Shahdol dismissing the petitioner/appellant's application under Section 6 read with Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), praying that he be appointed as guardian of person and property of his son, minor Harikrishan Yadav. 2. The facts not in dispute are that the parties are Hindus. The respondent is the wife of appellant. The minor Harikrishan is their son. He was born on 11-2-1987 at Shahdol. It is also not in dispute that the parties are not living separately. The petitioner/appellant had earlier also filed a petition for appointment as guardian of the minor as well as his sisters, the other children of the parties, which was registered as Guardians & Wards Case No. 5/1991. The said application was dismissed by the Lower Court on 23rd November, 1992. Miscellaneous Appeal ...
Kiran Chhabra and anr. Vs. Khajji Patel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ918
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh, in Claim Case No. 19 of 1997, dated 10.9.1999.2. Accident took place on 12.4.1990 in which Atul Kumar Chhabra died. Claimants are wife and son of the deceased, who was 28 years old at the time of the accident. Deceased was one of the partners of Chhabra Enterprises where the offending tractor bearing registration No. MP 15-0456 had been brought for repairs. It so happened that the tractor had been put up on a jack for repairs. The jack slipped and a portion of the tractor fell on the ground as a result of which the tyre burst and the disc hit chest of the deceased resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Damoh, for treatment, but he died there. The accident was reported at the police station, Damoh and a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the accused prosecuted.3. Allegation is that while parking the tractor, the gradient ...
Kiran Chabra and anr. Vs. Khalji Patel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: I(2004)ACC521
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Damoh, in Claim Case No. 19 of 1997, dated 10th September, 1999.2. Accident took place on 12th April, 1990 in which Atul Kumar Chhabra died. Claimants are wife and son of the deceased, who was 28 years old at the time of the accident. Deceased was one of the partners of Chhabra Enterprises where the offending tractor bearing registration No. MP 15-0456 had been brought for repairs. It so happened that the tractor had been put up on a jack for repairs. The jack slipped and a portion of the tractor fell on the ground as a result of which the tyre burst and the disc hit chest of the deceased resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Damoh, for treatment, but he died there. The accident was reported at the police station, Damoh and a case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the accused prosecuted.3. Allegation is that while parking the tract...
Govind Prasad Patel Vs. Dhani Ram Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT64; 2002(1)MPLJ356
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.2. There is a concurrent finding of fact of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the defendant took a necklace from the plaintiff on 5-3-1990 but did not return it. The defendant executed the document dated 22-3-1993 (Ex. P-1) expressly promising to return the ornament before 30-12-1993. The defendant executed another document dated 9-1-1994 (Ex. P-2) promising to return the same before 31-5-1994. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court has decreed it.3. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiffs case is not covered by Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the acknowledgement of liability as per documents Ex. P-l and Ex P-2 was not made 'before the expiration of the prescribed period for the suit'. To this extent his argument is legally correct and finds support from the decision of the ...
Biharilal Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT25
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise and, as such, they are being disposed of together.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. Petitioners are aggrieved by their transfers from one Janpad Panchayat to another Janpad Panchayat by the Zila Panchayat. It is the stand of the petitioners that they being the employees of one Janpad Panchayat, cannot be transferred to another Janpad Panchayat, and Zila Panchayat had no authority to transfer them. Stand of the Zila Panchayat is that under Section 52 (1) (xii) of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') one of the functions of the Zila Panchayat is to administer and control the employees appointed and posted in Panchayats including staff transferred by the State Governments to the Panchayats and in exercise of its function, it had transferred the petitioners from one Janpad Panchayat to another. It is common ground that all the employees who have be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›