Madhya Pradesh Court November 2003 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.
Amarsingh Vs. Kiranbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: II(2004)DMC242
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1996 in Hindu Marriage Case No. 142/95 passed by IXth Additional District Judge. Indore dismissing the petition filed for divorce under Section 13(i)(ia)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. Admitted facts of the case are that marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 18.5.1975 according to the Hindu rites and customs at Indore and they have a son Pratapsingh, who is living with the respondent/wife. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had filed a petition (No. 17/89) for divorce on the ground of adultry and it was dismissed in default of appearance of the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and in that petition the appellant has prayed for divorce from the respondent. That the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition for restitution of conju...
Kamiabai Vs. Marubai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC499
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999, passed by Additional District Judge Barwah, District West Nimar in civil suit No. 2.A/92, dismissing her suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit house.2. Admitted facts of the case are that one Ghisaji was the owner in possession of the suit house situated at Ward No. 9. House No. 46, at village Sanawad and Ghisaji expired on 19.1.1988. It is also the common ground that Ghisaji got married with one Rupabai and they had no issue from the wedlock. It is also the common ground that defendant No. 1 Marubai has executed a registered sale deed of the suit house on 13.6.1990 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It is also the common ground that first husband of Marubai was Natthu Rathor of village Dhamnod.3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that Marubai has no right and title on the suit house and she without any authority executed th...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC810; 2005ACJ1167
S.S. Jha and Subhash Samvatsar, JJ.1. This appeal is by the insurance company, whereby the insurance company has challenged the entire award and argued that no accident took place by the offender vehicle. There is no evidence regarding rash and negligent driving by the driver and insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Counsel for the appellant submitted that quantum is on higher side.2. Counsel for appellant submitted that according to the claimants the deceased was travelling in a tractor and the tractor was insured and premium was paid for the tractor driver. Tractor has sitting capacity of driver alone in the tractor. He submitted that risks of every person travelling on tractor is not covered by insurance policy and such driving by the owner of the vehicle is in violation of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submitted that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.3. Counsel for appellant then submitted that finding is recorded that decease...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Harish Kumar Tolani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT75
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner aggrieved by order (Annexure P-7) passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 83-A/02, Manoj Kumar v. H.K. Tolani has filed this petition.2. By the aforesaid order the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Ramratan Mohania as party and also the amendment proposed by the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel submits that for complete adjudication of the case it is necessary to implead Ramratan as party because he is claiming himself to be the landlord of suit shop. Notice have been served by him on the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly filed the aforesaid application for amendment and for impleadment of Ramratan as defendant. Impleadment of Ramratan will avoid multiplicity of the suit and complete adjudication of the dispute will be done in the present suit. In support of his contention, petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in Kamtaprasad and Anr. v. Smt. Vidyawati and Ors. (1995 ...
Smt. Sitabai and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamlabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT515; 2004(2)MPLJ554
ORDERP.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act for short) challenging the order of Rent Controlling Authority (R.C. A. for short) dated 12-12-2002 in case No. A-90 (7) 43/01 (Smt. Kamla Bai v. Sita Bai and 2 others) in which petitioners are ordered to vacate the disputed 3 rooms with an otla in front. Ground taken had been bonafide requirement for non-residential purpose of Ku. Alka Shukla (AW-2) a major daughter of the non-applicant, widow (landlady) falling within the definition of special category of landlords as defined under Section 23-J of the Act.2. The learned Advocate for petitioners has argued that admittedly the disputed rooms were let out for residential purpose and without express consent of the non-applicant (landlady) the same were used wholly or partly for non-residential purpose and thus as an effect of explanation to Section 23-A (a) of the Act the disputed shops could be got vacated only for residential ...
Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Maya Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC498
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants against dismissal of their claim by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation.2. Deceased Ramdayal Verma was a driver on truck bearing registration number MPW 8225. While he was driving the truck from Shivpuri to Gwalior, another truck bearing registration number UAB 9321 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his truck which resulted into his death. On account of fire in the truck he was burnt alive in the truck. Application for compensation was filed by the claimants. Application has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on the ground that the death of the deceased and factum of accident is not proved. Commissioner has also recorded a finding that it is not proved that the deceased died during the course of and arising out of the employment. Commissioner has also considered the driving licence Ex. P/1, in which it is mentioned that the name of the husband of Claimant No. 1 is Ramdayal Verma and fr...
Gyan Prakash Vs. P.K. Mishra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT372
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioner, as pro bono publico, has preferred this writ petition with numerous reliefs which include issue of a mandamus to collect back the loss of Rs. 607.47 crores for tank ammunition from the responsible officers of the Ordnance Factory, Khamariya and others; to issue a direction to the respondent No. 8, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, to collect back the profit of Rs. 1432.76 crores earned by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 during the period 1999-2002 to public fund as the said respondents arc charged War Insurance Charges from public for the last 50 years; to issue a command to collect back Rs. 2175.44 crores incurred on emergency procurement during the operation 'Vijay' (Kargil War) from War Insurer; to direct the Home Secretary for compliance of the provisions of the Arms Act; to identify the people who arc responsible for the loss of Rs. 4215.63 crores, as has been putforth in the body of the writ petition; to enforce the Govern...
Aarif and anr. Vs. Urmilabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1496
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The driver and the owner of the tractor involved in the accident have preferred this appeal against the award dated 25.8.2000 of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur passed in Claim Case No. 29 of 2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, as legal representatives of the deceased Tarachand, had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to seek compensation of Rs. 11,55,800 on account of death of Tarachand in an accident with the tractor bearing registration No. MP 12-0387. It was stated that deceased Tarachand was engaged as a labourer in the field of Faruq Ali. On the date of accident, he had been employed in connection with the levelling of the field. While he was engaged in the said agricultural operation, the tractor overturned over him causing his death. The tractor was insured with respondent No. 6, insurance company.2. The insurance company resisted the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and stated that tractor was being used...
Aarif and anr. Vs. Urmila Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: III(2006)ACC298
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The driver and the owner of the tractor involved in the accident have preferred this appeal against the award dated 25.8.2000 of the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur passed in Claim Case No. 29 of 2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, as legal representatives of the deceased Tarachand, had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to seek compensation of Rs. 11,55,800 on account of death of Tarachand in an accident with the tractor bearing registration No. MP 12-0387. It was stated that deceased Tarachand was engaged as a labourer in the field of Faruq Ali. On the date of accident, he had been employed in connection with the levelling of the field. While he was engaged in the said agricultural operation, the tractor overturned over him causing his death. The tractor was insured with respondent No. 6, insurance company.2. The insurance company resisted the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and stated that tractor was being used ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›