Madhya Pradesh Court February 2003 Judgments
Kandhilal Vs. Rajeshkumar Rawat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC798; 2004ACJ2074; 2003(2)MPHT227
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in M.V.C. No. 236/2000, dated 28-1-2002.2. Shortly stated, Kandhilal (46) has puncture repairing shop. On 12-7-1998, at 9 p.m., he closed his shop and went home along with his friend. At this lime, Scooter No. MP 20-W-7928, driven rashly and negligently, came from Madan Mahal crossing and hit the claimant, resulting in fracture of right thigh and injuries to other parts of his body. As a result of the injuries, he sustained permanent disability, loss of income for 24 months and future income for 15 years. Compensation of Rs. 8,30,000.00 is claimed. Rajesh Kumar Rawat was driving the scooter owned by Rajesh Rao and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Owner and driver have been proceeded ex parte. While Insurance Company disputes the claim. It alleges that driver of the scooter did not posses valid driving licence; therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.3....
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Parashar Vs. Smt. Mithelesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP77; II(2003)DMC42; 2003(2)MPHT465; 2003(2)MPLJ385
R.B. Dixit, J.1. The Grahsutra lays down that marriage is spiritual and holy bond. Manu says that a marriage is a divine institution given by Gods. But, today it appears that the modern man has totally ignored the underlying divinity of the institution of marriage and has turned it into a status symbol and means to boost his authority over others. Unfortunately, in the present case marriage has turned into a tale of sorrow where soon after solemnization of the marriage couple took a complete about-turn and parted with each other without consummation of it.2. The husband, appellant, had filed a divorce petition with the allegation that after marriage respondent, wife, came to his parent's house on 11-12-1994 at 8.00 A.M. and on the same day went to worship village deity at village Daurar with him and accompanied by brother-in-law and aunt. While travelling in car to his village the respondent started quarrelling with him on a false and concocted charge that appellant is already married ...
Tag this Judgment!State of M.P. Vs. Jitendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR884]; 2003(3)MPHT48
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find the petition to be entirely misconceived and hence deserves to be dismissed in limine. 2. It is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 4-2-2002 passed by the Labour Court on a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the said Labour Court in Case No. 1/I.D. Act/2001 Reference (Annexure P-2). 3. An industrial reference was made to the Labour Court at the instance of the respondents to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the I.D. Act to decide the legality and validity of the termination of the respondent. The said reference was seized by the Labour Court. Parties were called upon to file respective statements in support of their contentions. The respondent filed the statement and lead evidence whereas the petitioner did not file any statement nor lead any evidence. They remained...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhiya Bai and ors. Vs. Harilal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC772; 2004ACJ924
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this appeal, award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Suhagpur, in M.C.C. No. 13 of 1998 dated 27.11.1999 has been challenged.2. Shortly stated, Shankarlal (45) was a village cobbler. On 13.6.1991 he was going to Gadarwara by minibus No. MKB 9211 owned by Harilal alias Heeralal and driven by Subhash (dead). The bus fell into river Nandaner, through which it was passing. This happened because it was being driven rashly and negligently. Deceased died in this accident apart from many others. His family was dependent on him, therefore, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 is claimed.3. Owner of vehicle has denied the allegation. He alleges that the claim is barred by limitation. Insurance company has also denied the allegation. Vehicle was being driven in .violation of terms of insurance policy, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation.4. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal holds that the accident took place as alleged and...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Kumar Garg Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT251(MP)
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioners are the partners of dissolved firm M/s. Gopal Industries Morena. The firm has dissolved on account of death of one of the partner and intimation of dissolution of partnership was communicated to respondents. Annexure P/5 is the affidavit of one of the partner, Yogesh Kumar Garg filed by the respondents. On account of certain recoveries of excise duty against the said firm notices were sent in the name of firm, which were received by one Girjesh Rai, ex-employee of the M/s. Gopal Industries. He accepted the notices and filed reply on behalf of the partners. But, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that said Girjesh Rai was authorised by all the partners to appear on their behalf in the Central Excise matter before Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs. Document R-6 filed by the respondents with their return shows that Girjesh Rai was authorised to represent the firm in all matters related to excise. His authorisation automatically came to an end af...
Tag this Judgment!Devkaran Vs. Gangaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT265
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Plaintiff has come up in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the dismissal of his suit by the Lower Appellate Court for declaration of his title and cancellation of sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 3. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 19-7-2002 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Shujalpuf, in C.A. No. 13-A/2002 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 30-7-1996 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Shajapur, in C.S. No. 130-A/91. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid.2. Heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and hence it merits dismissal in limine.4. It is a suit filed by the appellant. He claims exclusive ownership o...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chander Khurana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT245; 2004(1)MPLJ201
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the order dated 11-7-2000 in O.A. No. 144/92, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dismissing his original application.2. The petitioner by filing an original application before the Tribunal challenged his supersession on the post of Additional General Manager (Senior Administrative Grade) on the ground of pendency of enquiry. He further sought relief and prayed for a direction against the respondents to open the sealed cover and promote him on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC to the post of Additional General Manager (Senior Administrative Grade) retrospectively and for grant of seniority over his junior with all consequential benefits.3. The Tribunal vide its order dated 5-1-95 (Annexure A-8), allowed the application. However, on an ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshrimal (Deceased) Through Lrs and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(MP)431; [2003]264ITR119(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern disposal of other writ being WP No. 1019/1987 (renumbered as WP 3638/1997) as both these writs involve identical issues and relates to same petitioner except the difference being the present petition arise out of IT Act and the other one arise out of WT Act.2. By filing this writ under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notices issued under Section 147(a) of the IT Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), dt. 17th Nov., 1986, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86 (Annexures P/16. P/17 and P/18). The reasoning for seeking to reopen the assessment for the years in question and which is communicated to the petitioner along with impugned notices reads as under:fnukad 21&10&1979 dks fgUnw vfHkoDrdqMwEc dk vkaf'kd caVokjk ;k le>kSrs ds vUrxZr tks jkf'k :i;s 1-25-112 esa lsizkIr gqbZ mldk fooj.kA mijksDr iwath ls vk; vkxkeh o'kksZ 1981&82 ls1986&87 esa iz...
Tag this Judgment!Kesrimal Vs. Ito
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN694(MP)
ORDER1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern disposal of other writ being W.P. No. 1019/87 (renumbered as W.P. 3638/97) as both these writs involve identical issues and relates to same petitioner except the difference being the present petition arise out of Income Tax Act and the other one arise out of Wealth Tax Act.2. By filing this writ under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notices issued under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 17-11-1986 for the assessment year 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 (Annexures P/16, P/17 and P/18). The reasoning for seeking to re-open the assessment for the years in question and which is communicated to the petitioner along with impugned notices reads as under:'fnukad 21-10-1979 dks fgUnq vfoHkDr dqVqEc dk vkaf'kd caVokjk ;k le>kSrk ds varxZr tks jkf'k :i, 1,25,112 esa ls izkIr gqbZ mldk fooj.kA mijksDr iawth ls vk; vkxkeh o'kksZ 1981-82 ls 198...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Gurjar and ors. Vs. Geeta Bai Gurjar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC402; 2003(2)MPHT211
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. It is a second appeal filed by the defendant (husband) under Section 100 of C.P. Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30-6-2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur in C.A. No. 16-A of 2000, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 8-Aof 1998, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Bhanpura, on 16-10-2000. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law?2. Heard Shri L.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the appellants on the question of admission.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the appeal. In other words,the appeal docs not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid and hence, it merits dismissal in limine.4. Facts are simple. The plaintiff is legally married wife of defendant. She complains by filing a suit that defendant is threatening to m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »