Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Union of India Vs. Sanjay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1349; 2001(4)MPHT496
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India aggrieved by the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, awarding a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the claimant Sanjay who suffered amputation of his both legs and suffered disability of 100% thereby, as train was started with jerk all of sudden without prior indication due to which the claimant fell down and train over run him.2. The defence taken by the Railways was that the accident could not be termed to be an untoward accident. The claimant was not a passenger travelling with a valid ticket. The Claims Tribunal has found that the claimant was travelling with a valid ticket No. 35455. It is contended that only one ticket was produced whereas friend of the claimant was also travelling. However, the Tribunal has recorded that the ticket No. 35454 was also produced before it.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant was not a bonafide passenger. He further submits that the Railways was not negligent.4. As t...
Hari Ram Vs. Nagar Palika Prashashak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT269; 2002(2)MPLJ215
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated 5-12-1990 at the time of admission of this appeal:--'(1) Whether, documents on records and the conduct of the parties as disclosed by the evidence could lead to Ending that a contract for transfer of the suit plot existed between the parties and such contract is enforceable against the respondent/Municipal Council, Tikamgarh ?(2) Whether, provision of Sections 109 and 110 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 bars the relief of Specific Performance claimed by the appellant ?(3) Whether, the suit was bad for non-service of notice under Section 319 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 ?'2. The defendant-Municipal Council, Tikamgarh is owner of House No. 32, Ward No. 12, Risala Line, Tikamgarh. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant agreed to sell the land having an area 1825 Sq. ft. and the house standing thereon to him by a s...
Sheikh Tausif Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1562; 2002(1)MPHT61; 2002(1)MPLJ263
S.S. Saraf, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.PC has been directed against theorder dated 4-7-2001 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 82/2001 affirming the order dated 21-5-2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saunsar District Chhindwara in P.O.R. No. 8891/2001 rejecting an application filed under Section 457, Cr.PC for the release of the vehicle on Supurdnama.2. A criminal case for offence under Sections 2, 9, 27, 29, 35(6), 43(3), 46(A), 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Sections 26 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act has been registered against Abdul Waheed Ansari and Babulal on the allegations that they were fishing in the reservoir of Pench National Park, Chhindwara. The fish so collected were being transported in the Jeep No. MP-28-C/0195 which was seized. It is alleged that the seized vehicle belongs to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed an application for release of the said ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amirkhan and 2 ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC145
ORDERS.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The appellant/The New India Assurance Co. has directed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 16.12.1997 passed by the M.A.C.T., Ujjain in Claim Case No. 70/1989 thereby allowing the claim petition filed on behalf of the respondent-1 and passing the award of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of respondent/claimant and against the respondents-2, 3 as also the appellant Insurance Company. The amount of compensation was made payable by all the respondents and the appellant jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal.2. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the payment of the compensation mainly on the ground that the cover note (Policy of Insurance) was issued by the Insurance Company after the alleged accident has already occurred. In this respect the learned Counsel for the appellant in...
Ram Sewak and ors. Vs. Chakresh Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT375; 2002(3)MPLJ604
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court by order dated 13-8-1999 at the time of admission of this appeal:--'Whether the Courts below have erred in passing the decree for eviction on the grounds under Sections 12 (1) (c), 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (g), of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that defendant No. 1 Ramsevak was tenant of Konsabai in the suit accommodation. She has bequeathed this house to plaintiff Dr. Chakresh Kumar Jain by registered Will dated 14-5-1991. Thus the plaintiff has become the owner of this house after the death of the testator on 3-6-1991 and defendant No. 1 Ramsevak became his tenant.3. The plaintiffs suit for eviction has been decreed under Section 12 (1) (c), (f) and (g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Nanak Singh Guliani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR677(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Income-tax Officer aggrieved by the reversal order in respect of imposition of penalty by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which order was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.2. The essential facts indicate that Shri Nanak Singh Guliani, an assessee is engaged in a business of contractor-ship. He was granted a contract amounting to Rs. 88,92,248 from MACT College, Bhopal. Out of this, the assessee had sub-contracted the work of Rs. 39,36,075 to Zenith Engineers, Bhopal, on two per cent, profit and the remaining work was completed by Guliani Construction Company, in which the assessee is a partner. The Assessing Officer found that the total contract amount received by the assessee was more than Rs. 40 lakhs, as such he should have filed a return along with the audit report under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271B. A noti...
Kishor Singh and Etc. Vs. Sudama Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ802; 2002(1)MPLJ22
ORDERN.G. Karambelkar, J.1. By this common order Criminal Revision 105/99 and Criminal Revision 123/99, are being disposed of as the two arise out of a common order dated 30-3-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No. 161/99 and a common question of law is involved therein. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate, having taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners on a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 has issued process under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code. The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that because of non-compliance with proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is vitiated.2. It is not disputed before me that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session . He, while holding inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure took cognizance of the offence and issued processes without examini...
Sonabai Vs. Bhabutsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1156; 2002(1)MPHT118; 2002(1)MPLJ542
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Claim Case No. 177/97, dated 12-2-2001.2. On 25-8-97, Imratlal Gond (deceased) was going to Bhedaghat for making purchases. When he reached the gelatin factory, Jeep No. MP-04-H-5059, driven rashly and negligently, hit him as a result of which he fell down on the spot and became unconscious. On 16-11-97, he died. Bhedaghat police registered a criminal case against the driver Ashok Kumar who was driving the jeep at the time of accident. Bhabutsingh Choudhary is the owner of the jeep. At the time of accident, deceased was Chowkidar and earning Rs. 2,800.00 per month. Towards medicines, he spent Rs. 50,000.00, apart from the other expenses. Claimant is the widow of the deceased. She states that her husband was 50 years old and the family suffered loss of Rs. 5,31,000.00due to his death.3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement, but at the time of recording evidence, ...
Bhagwan Das Jain, Advocate Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR630]; 2001(4)MPHT265; 2001(3)MPLJ459
ORDERS.S. Jha, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for directing respondents to register the sale deed, Annexure P-1. It is contended by the petitioner that petitioner has purchased property from one Shri Arjunrao Khatke and sale deed was executed on 31-3-2001 alongwith map of the property sold. The sale deed was presented before respondent No. 3 for registration. Respondent No. 3 has refused to accept the registration fee charges and is not registering the sale deed. It is contended that the sale deed is not been registered by the Sub-Registrar and Sub-Registrar is duty bound to register the sale deed when it is presented.2. Counsel for petitioner invited attention to the provisions of Section 47A(1-A) Indian Stamp Act as amended in M.P. and submitted that if the Registering Officer finds that the market value set forth in the instrument is not less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules under this Act, and the Registering Officer has reason to believe tha...
Jameela Begum and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC300
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. By the impugned order, in all these appeals application of the claimants/appellants under Rule 18(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short), for restoration of claim petitions filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, were dismissed. Since common questions are involved, in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Undisputably, the petitioner Khudabaksh filed several claim petitions, under the Indian Railways Act, claiming damages before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. Notice of the said claim petitions were also served on the respondents. However, the said claim petitions were dismissed on account of non-prosecution in the absence of the petitioner and his Counsel. O.A. No. 240/ 1992, O.A. No. 241/1992, O.A. No. 242/1992, O.A. No. 245/1992 and O.A. No. 246/1992 were dismissed on 1.3.1996, while O.A. No. 244/1992 and O.A. No. 243/1992 were so dismissed on 27.2.1996. App...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »