Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 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.
Heeralal Pandey Vs. Susheel Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ247
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur dated 25.4.1994 in M.V. Case No. 3 of 1994. Claimants are Heeralal Pandey (father) and Gangotri Bai (mother) of deceased Raghunandan Prasad Pandey. During the pendency of this case, Gangotri Bai has died, leaving Heeralal Pandey sole appellant in the case, seeking enhancement of compensation.2. On 1.11.1988, Raghunandan Prasad Pandey (the deceased) was coming from Barela to Jabalpur on his Luna on the left side of the road. When he reached in front of Military Dairy Farm, he was hit by vehicle No. MBK 7425 driven rashly and negligently by Raju alias Riyaz Ahmad, owned by Susheel Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jabalpur. Report of accident was lodged at Gorabazar Sub Chowki of Police Station, Cantonment, Jabalpur and a criminal case was registered. Vehicle involved in accident was impounded. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving ...
Dheeraj Singh and anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1978; 2003(4)MPLJ8
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against rejection of his application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Prakash Singh died in a motor accident on 6.3.1993. He was riding a motor cycle bearing No. MP 08-B 0823. As per allegations in the claim petition he was pillion rider and died on the spot in the accident. Respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle lodged an F.I.R. stating that the motor cycle was driven by the deceased at the time of accident. The present claimants who are claiming to be the heirs of the deceased Prakash Singh filed the claim petition for compensation for the death of Prakash Singh. Along with the claim petition the claimants also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said application is rejected by the Claims Tribunal against which the present appeal is filed. The court has rejected the application solely relying upon the judgment of Sup...
Narendra Kumar Saxena Vs. Paper Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP193; 2002(4)MPHT157; 2003(1)MPLJ633
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Defendant aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which suit of respondent was decreed, has filed this appeal.2. This appeal was admitted on 13-8-1991 on following substantial questions of law :--'(1) Whether filing of a photo-copy of acknowledgment about registration of a firm issued by the Registrar of Firms and exhibited as P-1 was sufficient compliance of Section 68(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ?(2) Whether in the absence of certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms, the suit of the respondents was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable ?'3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has filed the present suit on behalf of the Partnership firm. In this regard averment has been made in para 1 of plaint but the appellant has denied this fact. In these circumstances, to prove the factum that the respondent is a registered firm certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in th...
Devisingh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ147; 2003(1)MPHT24
Deepak Verma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the convicted appellants, who have been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth in Special Cr. Case No. 73/91, decided on 6-84993 and have been awarded sentence of 2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each,2. In all five accused persons were charged and prosecuted for commission of alleged offence under Section 3(1)(v) or in the alternative under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. However, one of the accused Mana has been acquitted of the said charge but the remaining four have been found guilty only under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act and have been awarded punishment as mentioned above.3. As per the prosecution story on 12-9-1991 the appellant hadgone to the field of complainant Bhoniram and started scolding him. It is said that he was also beaten with fists ...
Shri Umakant Choure Vs. Banking Ombudsman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT278
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner submits that he has made a complaint Annexure P-3 before the Banking Ombudsman appointed under the provisions of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995. The main grievance of the petitioner in the complaint is that he is Counsel representing the Bank. Petitioner has not been paid process fee etc. amounting to Rs. 1200/-. There is no case pending with respect to process fee, is the submission made in para 16. Certain facts have been averred as to harassment made of the petitioner in the release of FDR against the banking norms. But, that is not the relief claimed in the petition. Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 applies to the Business in India of every Commercial Bank (other than Regional Rural Banks) and Scheduled Primary Co-operative Bank' having a place of business in India, whether such bank is incorporated in India or outside India. The object of the scheme is to enable resolution of complaints relating to provision of banking services and to facilitate the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›