Madhya Pradesh Court August 2002 Judgments
Kiran Devi and ors. Vs. Karam Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC305
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred by the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased Subhash Sharma, who died in an accident involving motor vehicle.2. The appeal has been preferred against the award dated 6.12.1996 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gonad, wherein a sum of Rs. 1,54,129/- has only been awarded under various heads to the claimants who were the widow and parents of the deceased, Subhash.3. It is not disputed that the deceased who was travelling on a motor-cycle on the date of accident, i.e. on 18.9.1995 collided with a Jeep driven by respondent No. 2 and belonging to respondent No. 1. As a result of which the deceased Subhash got seriously injured and ultimately died in the hospital on the same day. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by his widow and parents.4. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing them passed the impugned award. In the impugned award learned Tribunal held the monthly income of the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogiram Vs. Eshan Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC37
ORDER1. The learned Third Addl. Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 86/1994 by impugned Award dated 8.2.1996, has dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground of limitation alone.2. It is not disputed that the incident took place on 18.1.1991 and the claim was filed on 23.8.1991. Although, in claim petition it was mentioned that the claim is within limitation, however a separate application under proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed. However, it seems that the learned Claims Tribunal while rejecting the claim as time-barred, did not consider the amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994, much before the claim was decided.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Ors. reported in I (1996) ACC 603 (SC) : 1996 JLJ 528, dealing with the effect of amendment on pending cases has observed that from the Amending Act, it does not appear that the said Sub-section (3), has been deleted r...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjal Singh Thakur Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SCT369(MP)
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. In this petition dated 27-6-2002, the petitioner seeks quashment of Criminal Case No. 26/98, pending against him in the Court of Special Judge, Sidhi, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and in which, as many as 17 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.2. As per the prosecution, this petitioner, who at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kusmi, Dist. Sidhi, employed 25 daily-wage employees in violation of circular dated 1st April, 1987, issued by G.A.D., Madhya Pradesh, and thus put the State Govt., to loss to the tune of Rs. 7,13,889/- for his own financial gain.3. Referring order dated 17-8-99, passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7474/98 (Shri R.S. Saxena v. State of M.P.), it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since in aforesaid case also the Court was pleased to quash the proceeding in exercise of inherent powers, which were initiated on t...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Minerals Supply Company Vs. M.P. Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT530
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Satna, in Civil Appeal No. 3-B of 1988 decided on 18th December, 1990 by which the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 26 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910.2. Short facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a consumer of respondent-Electricity Board, having electricity connection. By the suit plaintiff challenged the recovery of an amount of Rs. 4090.83 which defendant had raised on the plaintiff on 8-5-1980. The above said suit was filed under Section 5(2) of M.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1961 after depositing the amount of bill, the above said section reads as under :--'5 (2). 'A suit referred to in Sub-section (1) may be instituted in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction at any time within six months from the date of deposit with the prescribed authority and subject t...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ved Prakash Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC379
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. By the impugned order dated 11.9.2001, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, in his Criminal Case No. 679/2001 (Vedprakash Gupta v. S.K. Pharmaceutical Ltd.) on complaint of Vedprakash Gupta, the respondent, registered an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (to be called as Act only). The Magistrate first issued a notice and on petitioner's remaining absent despite service of notice, he issued coerceive process. Ultimately non-bailable warrant was also issued.2. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short), the petitioners have sought quashment of the proceedings first on the ground that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR for short) has declared the petitioner-Company a sick company and under Section 22A of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Povisions) Act, 1985, has directed not to dispose of its assets; secondly that against registration of a criminal case under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Prasad Mishra Vs. Smt. Kamla Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT93; 2003(2)MPLJ28
ORDERNarain Singh 'Azad', J.1. The petitioner seeks quashment of proceeding in Criminal Case No. 14/2001, which are pending against this petitioner and others, in the Court of C.J.M., Umariya, on a complaint filed by respondent and in which cognizance for offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC is taken. 2. As per certified copy of complaint (Annexure P-1), filed by respondent against this petitioner and 5 others, all the accused persons have defamed the respondent by sending letters to the relatives, containing this false allegation that the respondent has taken one Nandlal Pradhan, Head Constable posted at Indwar, for her husband whereas, the respondent comes in relation as Bhabhi to Nandlal. 3. Respondent herself and her witnesses Nandram Gautam and Rajesh Kumar Shukla have supported the aforesaid allegation of defamation in their statements recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.PC which are marked as Annexures P-2 to P-4, and on the basis of this prima facie evidence, the le...
Tag this Judgment!Kirti Prem Raj JaIn Vs. Ved Prakash Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPLJ394; [2003]47SCL104(MP)
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J. 1. On complaint of respondent, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in his case Ved Prakash Gupta v. Kirti Premraj Jain [Criminal Case No. 67 of 2000] has taken cognizance of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Such cognizance was taken after record of statement of Vedprakash Gupta, the respondent, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) and one of his witness under Section 202 of the said Code.2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code, petitioner seeks quashment of this impugned order claiming that a direction under Section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, not to dispose of its asset has been given by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR for short). On 21-5-1999, the petitioner-Company is debarred from making payments. As per petitioner, the respondent should have brought these facts to the knowledge of the Magistrate.3. The Hon. Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Deo Janki Raman Mandir Trust Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT290; 2003(2)MPLJ448
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition short question arises for consideration whether the Registrar, Public Trust is having the right to remove the trustee. Registrar lacks the jurisdiction is the submission of the petitioner while seeking the quashment of the orders P-3 and P/3-A passed by the Registrar of Public Trust respectively on 14-9-98 and 16-9-98.2. It is not necessary to refer the facts in extensive details; suffice it to observe that petitioner is a registered public trust under the Public Trusts Act, 1951. The only question for consideration is whether the Registrar, Public Trust has the jurisdiction to remove the existing trustee and appoint another by his own order.3. This matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dalludas v. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, 1971 JLJ Short Note 135 and another Division Bench decision of this Court in Sheoprasad Dubey v. Registrar, Public Trusts, Sagar and Ors., 1972 JLJ Short Note 6. It has been held b...
Tag this Judgment!Dadu Alias Indraka Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1125; 2003(1)MPHT302
S.L. Jain, J.1. The appellant is challenging in this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his conviction and the sentence awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, vide impugned judgment and order dated 17-3-90 in Sessions Trial No. 200/89. A sentence of 1-1/2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 3 months' R.I. was imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act on the allegations that on 15-7-89 at about 2.30 P.M. in Village Panagar he fired a pistol to deceased Bhuri Kori when he was watching the movie in Jitendra Video Hall. On 19-7-89, appellant was arrested by A.K. Jharkhedia (P. W. 9), the Investigating Officer as per Ex. P-11 and one 12 bore Katta (country made pistol) and 12 b...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1045MP
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order by which penalty has been imposed of Rs. 20,000/- on the petitioner for employing a child labour Mohd. Ali S/o Habib Ali, resident of Sanodha as per order P.2. In the order itself the age of Mohd. All is mentioned to be 14 years. Petitioner challenges the impugned order P. 2 on the ground that enquiry has not been conducted. Reply submitted by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and recovery is being made of the penalty.2. Return has been filed adopting the return filed in W.P. No. 4314/1997 (Prem Chand Sitaram Sahu v. State of M.P.) pointing out that penalty has been rightly imposed. In view of the report submitted by Inspector, the order is proper and no interference is called for.3. The Apex Court in M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699 : 1996 (6) SCC 756 : 1997-II-LLJ-724 had laid down that children aged about 14 years cannot be employed in any factory or mine or other hazardous work and they...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »