Madhya Pradesh Court February 2002 Judgments
Hanslal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3257
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant-Hanslal has been convicted under Sections 326, 325 and 436, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, three months and six months respectively.2. It is not in dispute that accused-Hanslal is real brother of complainant-Girjabai (P.W. 3), Narbad (P.W. 2) is her husband and Krishna Kumar (P.W. 5) is her son. Girjabai had filed Civil Suit No. 246-A of 1987 in the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Balaghat against her brother Hanslal and two others for partition and separate possession of 4.12 acres of land of village Kosmi which she claimed to have been left by her father after his death 15 years ago. Khasra No. 57/1 area 0.09 acre is also included therein. This civil suit was filed on 7-12-1987. A certified copy of the plaint in that civil suit is Ex. D.7. These lands were jointly recorded in the names of Girjabai and Hanslal after the death of their father Tilakchand long back but on 18-6-1986 the Tehsildar struck out the name of Girjaba...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sudhir Tiwari Vs. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi Issrani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT132; 2002(3)MPLJ62
K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by defendant/tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 735/2000, dated 3-1-2002. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but has refused decree to the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (c), (k) and (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge has confirmed the decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act and has also granted decree to the plaintiff-respondent under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant is tenant of the plaintiff on the ground floor of house Nos. 1243 and 1244, Wright Town, Jabalpur at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 1-10-1992 (Ex. P-1). The premises were taken for non-residential purposes to run a clinic and the d...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1207
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. In this appeal order dated 31.8.1998, in O.A. No. 417 of 1997, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal, has been challenged.2. It appears that claimant-respondent Anil Kumar Gupta with minor Sumit Kumar were travelling by A.P. Express on 16.6.1997. The said train met with an accident resulting in grievous injuries to minor Sumit Kumar. He suffered comminuted depressed fracture on the posterior parieto-occipital bone with some depressed bone fragments extending into the cranium. The minor through his father respondent Anil Kumar Gupta filed a claim petition under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989.3. The learned Tribunal held that the minor had gone into come. He has been deprived of all his capacity to do any work in future. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the injury was not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule. Therefore, as per Rule 3 (2) of the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nannulal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR127]; 2002(3)MPHT369
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of his removal pursuant to the directions issued by the Govt. to remove all daily wage employees appointed after 1-1-1989.2. Petitioner submits that he was employed in Municipal Council, Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1995. The petitioner submits that he had filed previously writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1117/99 in which this Court had issued following directions :--'Considering the facts of the case, no directions for regularisation can be passed in two petitions as disputed questions of fact pertaining to nature of employment and period of service are involved. In such circumstances, it will be appropriate to direct each municipality to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Rules of 1967 for absorption. Since Municipality is an Industry, therefore, conditions of service of employees are governed by Standard Standing Orders. Therefore, each case is to be exam...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR421]; (2002)IIILLJ154MP; 2002(2)MPHT252
ORDERArun Mishra, J.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Perused the record.1. The grievance of the petitioner he has been wrongfully deprived of his benefits as per Annexure P-8 passed on 4-5-1998 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, M.P., Bhopal. The application filed by the petitioner for release of the pensionary benefits was disallowed on the ground that total period of the service was less than 10 years. Thus, he was not entitled to the payment of pension.2. The petitioner was employed as a Labourer in Gwalior Potteries (hereinafter referred to as employer) with effect from 31-1-1959. He continued in service till 1-12-1976. The petitioner alleges that services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by the employer. He filed a petition before the Labour Court which declared the termination as illegal and void as per order passed on 9-11-1989 (Annexure P-1). The Labour Court directed reinstatement along with 30% backwages. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Jiwaji University, Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT303; 2002(2)MPLJ619
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the action of the University is not giving the admission to him in the course of Bachelor of Pharmacy. 2. The petitioner submits that he secured in 10 + 2 examination 49.77% marks. Petitioner also passed B.Sc. examination in which he secured53.99% marks. Petitioner appeared in Pre-Pharmacy Admission test conducted by the Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He secured 32nd position in the test. He was called for counselling but as 17 students did not attend the counselling, thus the petitioner stood 15th in the merit of the candidates who appeared for counselling. Number of seats is 60. Out of 60 seats, there are 30 free seats. The sole ground on which petitioner claim was rejected was that he had not obtained 50% marks in 10 + 2 examination. Petitioner filed a representation to give admission. Petitioner submits that as per rules for admission as mentioned in Bulletin cum Prospectus, the minimum qualification is Higher Secondary with 50% ma...
Tag this Judgment!Jasrath Vs. Mst. Guddi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC130
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. Arguments heard.2. By order dated 27th July, 1999, passed by J.M.F.C, Niwari, in Criminal Case No. 64/1998, the maintenance petition of respondents stood rejected, who successfully challenged the same before the First A.S.J., Tikamgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 120/1999. Setting aside the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. the learned First A.S.J., Tikamgarh granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to respondent No. 1 and at the rate of Rs. 150/- till the marriage to respondent No. 2, which is payable since the date of order. The aforesaid order passed by learned First A.S.J., Tikamgarh, is in challenge in this revision petition.3. The grant of maintenance to respondent No. J is being challenged on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and grant of ma intenance to respondent No. 2 is being challenged on the ground of her attaining the majority. But, it is found admitted by petitioner in paragraph No. 4 under cross-e...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikamchand Vs. Jagdish @ Manoj and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC357
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 27.8.1997 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha, District West Nimar Khargone in Claim Case No. 28/1995.2. In brief, the case of the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was that at 8.00 p.m. the deceased Sagarbai, mother of the appellant was going to the house of her relatives situated in Barwaha. The respondent No. 1 Jagdish came while driving the truck bearing Registration No. MP-09-K/7071 rashly and negligently from Railway Station side and hit the deceased Sagarbai resulting into her instantaneous death on the spot. The matter was reported to the police and the police had filed the charge-sheet against the respondents No. 1 Jagdish under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.3. The appellant-claimant had filed the claim petition for a total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte by the Claims Tribunal. The Insurance...
Tag this Judgment!Kadivan and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1439; 2002(2)MPLJ358
Chandresh Bhushan, J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 28.11.1998 of the Second Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, refusing their prayer regarding payment of the full sum finally awarded to them on the basis of the principle of fault, over and above and independent of the sum awarded on the principle of no fault liability, this revision petition has been preferred by the claimants.2. The facts in brief are that one Kayam Hussain died in a road accident involving a motor vehicle. Thereafter the petitioners, who were the legal representatives of the deceased, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation. During the pendency of their application a sum of Rs. 50,000 was granted to them under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the principle of no fault liability. That amount was duly paid. Thereafter a final award was passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of petitioners/ applicants for a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Sardar Harnam Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(MP)572
By The CourtOn an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 19,837 (for assessment year 1973-74) Rs. 11,570 (for assessment year 1974-75) levied under section 18(1)(a) ?2. The relevant assessment years are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The case of the assessee is that he had bona fide belief that he did not have deductible (sic) wealth, therefore, he could not file the return on the higher value of the assets and also disallowing some liabilities. He had belief that those liabilities are deductible for the purpose of wealth-tax, therefore, he would not file this return in time. Tribunal has discussed this in its order. The relevant facts to the issue which have been reproduced in the statement of the case reads as under :'The assessee has repeated the same arguments before us as were made before the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »