Madhya Pradesh Court December 2002 Judgments
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Pd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ2154; 2003(1)MPHT406
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order by which compensation has been awarded to the claimants on their application under Section 166 of the Act. The order in this appeal will also govern the disposal of connected Misc. Appeals bearing Nos. 844/2001, 845/2001, 846/2001, 847/2001, 848/2001, 850/2001, 852/2001, 865/2001, 866/2001, 867/2001, 879/2001 and 880/2001.2. The facts relevant for the decision of the points raised in this appeal are that on 8-4-1994 there was a collision between mini-bus No. MP-20-E-9311 and Tanker No. MP-20-A-8447 coming from opposite directions on the main road near Village Nigri. The mini bus was owned by non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Prabha Sharma and insured by non-applicant No. 2 United India Insurance Company. The tanker was owned by non-applicant No. 3 Subhash Chandra and insured with non-applicant No. 4 National Insura...
Tag this Judgment!Maihar Cement Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT428; 2003(3)MPLJ308
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is an appeal by applicant Maihar Cement under Section 41 of the M.P. Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') against the order by which the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Commission') has declined to give consent to it to install additional 15 MW thermal captive power plant on its application under Section 21 of the Adhiniyam.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is manufacturing cement at Maihar. It requires uninterrupted supply of electricity. It has been provided at HTconnection at 132 KV with a contract demand of 23 MVA by the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Board'). The petitioner company has already installed 'captive power plants' of 30.3 MW after obtaining consent of the Board under Section 44 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the '...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. Tulsabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1898
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') challenging that part of the order by which insurance companies have been exonerated from their liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident did not occur in a 'public place' as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act.2. There is Diamond Cement Factory at Damoh. Trucks and dumpers come inside the said factory to load cement bags for transportation to various destinations. On 3.4.1996 at about 10,30 p.m. such vehicles were standing in queue waiting for their turn to load cement bags. Truck No. CPQ 7157 was also there. Non-applicant No. 1 Phoolchand was its driver, non-applicant No. 3 Rajendra Singh (the appellant) is its owner and it was insured with the non-applicant No. 5 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Behind this truck there was dumper No. MP 15-D 0403. Non-applicant No. 2 Ghanshyam was its driver. It was owned by non-...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC226
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant/Insurance Company of the offending truck has filed this appeal against the award dated 23rd July, 1999. There was head-on collision on 5.2.1995, between truck No. MKN-176 and tractor No. MP 13/K-4407. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tractor. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 24,000/-, against the Insurance Company of the truck for the damages to the tractor as well as for the loss suffered on account of tractor lying die for a period of 2-3 months.2. Mr. Swami, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the owner of the tractor has already taken compensation for the repairs of the tractor from the Insurance Company of the tractor and in this case also such an objection was taken, but on this objection neither any issue was framed nor any inquiry was held, nor the Insurance Company of the tractor was made party, otherwise this Would have come on record that in such circumstances when the tractor owner has already taken comp...
Tag this Judgment!Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003(4)JCR325(MP)]; 2003(1)MPHT226
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioners in both the writ petitions (W.P. No. 177 of 2001, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. The State of M.P. and Anr. and W.P. No. 1629 of 2001, Daya Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and Anr.) have challenged the competence of Municipal Corporation to impose toll on the entry of vehicles within the Municipal Limits under Sub-section (6) of Section 132 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') and submit that the entry tax is being collected from the bus owners without any authority; more so when tax is being paid under Section 3 of the M.P. Motoryan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short 'the Act of 1991'). Section 6 of the Act of 1991 is similar to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 which imposes bar on any local authority to impose tax in respect of the motor vehicles in question. Contention is that tax is being paid by the petitioners for use of roads maintained by the State, therefore, they can bring in and take...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Abdul Zarkhan and Kumar Sales Centre and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(MP)547; [2003]260ITR358(MP)
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid appeals. In the aforesaid appeals, a common question of law is involved, as such, they have been heard together and being disposed of by the common judgment.2. The appellant-Union of India has directed the aforesaid appeals against the judgments dated June 25, 1992, and December 22, 1992, rendered by the ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore, respectively, in Criminal Case No. 95 of 1988 and Criminal Case No. 60 of 1990, whereby the learned magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents of the offences punishable under Section 276DD read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act.3. In both the cases the accused-respondents, in the relevant year of assessment, received cash deposits from the persons in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. A prosecution was instituted against the respondents after issuing a show cause notice on the respective respondents. In Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 1993, the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Birdibai Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(MP)545; [2003]260ITR389(MP)
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid two appeals filed on behalf of the Union of India respectively against the order dated November 24, 1992, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 57 of 1990 and Criminal Case No. 56 of 1990 whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. For both the aforesaid appeals the facts in brief are that the respondent-assessee filed returns of her income for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 on March 31, 1987, showing her income respectively Rs. 16,676 and Rs. 19,890 for the aforesaid periods. The assessment was completed on July 21, 1987, and thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the respondent-assessee, as it was found that the assessee has not disclosed the income received by her by way of rent from the house property of Rs. 40,000. In reply to t...
Tag this Judgment!Rinka Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1239
A.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Addl. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar, whereby awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,000 plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.1998, Janubai, mother of the claimant Rinka, aged about 4 years, was waiting for a bus at village Dahi to go to Dharamrai Road. A passenger bus No. MP 11-A 3691, belonging to respondent No. 2 and being driven by respondent No. 3, rashly and negligently, came and hit Rinka. On account of the said accident Rinka received severe injury in her right leg. The whole skin of the thigh was ruptured and leg was also fractured. The incident was reported to the Police Station Dahi and, thereafter, she was taken to P.H.C. Dahi and after giving some first aid she was referred to the District...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Kumar Vs. Hajarilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT188
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff/ respondent bona fidely needed the suit accommodation for business of his major son Kundanlal.2. This appeal was admitted on 2-8-2000 on following substantial questions of law :--'(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that it did not matter to the case of the respondent if he did not in the witness box say in so many words that he required the suit shop bona fide for opening a shop of his son Kundanlal ? (ii) Whether the Court below failed to see that it was the requirement of the respondent Hajarilal and not that of his son which gave him right to evict the appellant and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to say so in the witness box, failing which, it can be presumed that there is no bona fide requirement ? (iii) Whether the evidence led by the appellant in respect of alternative accomm...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vs. Shrenikmal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC331; 2003(2)MPHT9
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This order also governs disposal of aforesaid Misc. Criminal Case No. 3688/2002. This petition has been filed by applicant Gangadhar for quashing the proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailana. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that non-applicant No. 1/Shrenikmal filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against applicant and non-applicant No. 2 Renukanand. According to the complainant's own showing, non-applicant No. 2/Renukanand is the Proprietor of Laxmi Trading Company and the cheque in dispute was duly issued under the signature of non-applicant No. 2/Renukanand in both the cases and the same bears seal of the Proprietor. Non-applicant No. 2, Renukanand is the Proprietor. Though the applicant Gangadhar is the brother of Renukanand but he has no concern with the business transaction arrived between non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. The applicant, has falsely been impli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »