Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Smt. Vijay Mala Bhonsle and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1176]; (2003)IIILLJ102MP; 2003(2)MPHT242; 2003(3)MPLJ17
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugnes an order dated 20th Feb., 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 432/98 whereby while allowing the petition, an order dated 22-2-91 being Annexure P-2 thereto, passed by the appellant was quashed and consequently, benefits of family pension in terms of Paragraph 30 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (in short 'the Scheme, 1971') have been granted.2. It is said that husband of the respondent No. 1 was employed as a Watchman in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and on account of unavoidable circumstances, having fallen sick, he is said to have remained on leave without pay from 8-1-1986 to 2-12-1987. It is further said that right fromentry into service, the deceased had been regularly contributing to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and had also opted for the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 but during the period as aforesaid, on account of ailment, a situation beyond his control,...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Fakir Mohammad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT446
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal, as in my opinion, the question involved in this appeal stands answered and settled by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in a decision rendered in the case of Smt. Sooraj and Ors. v. S.D.O., Rehli and Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 872. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent thereby resulting in dismissal of suit filed by the respondent.2. This appeal is preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of CPC as a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 19-12-1983, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ujjain in C.A. No. 27-A of 1981, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 67-A of 1976, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Tarana on 30-4-1981. It was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appel...
Kalusingh and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC46; 2003(2)MPHT388; 2003(2)MPLJ355
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 10-10-98 passed by the Special Judge (Under N.D.P.S. Act), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 8/97, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing them each to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default of payment thereof to suffer further R.I. for two years, the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 17-2-1997 at 3.20 AM. The Station House Officer Anil Singh (P. W. 5) received information through Mukhbeer that the accused/appellants were carrying opium for the purposes of sale from Suwasra. A Panchnama (Ex. P-1) was prepared to this effect and sent the same to the S.D.O.P., Sitamau. The S.H.O. then started for the spot alongwith the police party and surrounded the spot. Th...
Shyamlal Vs. Munnasingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1969
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 9/12.10.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 13 of 1999 by the XII Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore.2. In this case accident is admitted. The rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle is also admitted. It is also admitted that the appellant received injuries in the said accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application, against which this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.3. I have heard Mr. Harish Gilke, the learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. P. Mitha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.4. Admittedly the claimant Shyamlal, who is aged about 45 years, received a fracture in his right leg...
Shyamabai and ors. Vs. Isloop and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC442; 2005ACJ1508
Deepak Verma and N.K. Jain, JJ.1. For the death of a 40 years old person working in the Telecom Department and who died in a motor accident involving a motor vehicle insured with respondent No. 5 insurance company, the Claims Tribunal below has awarded Rs. 3,70,000 as compensation to the widow, children and mother of the deceased.2. The net salary which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death was Rs. 5,423 per month. After making allowance for 1/3rd of this amount which the deceased must be spending on himself, the dependency was computed at Rs. 3,616 per month or Rs. 43,392 per annum. However, a multiplier of 10 was applied which, having regard to the age of the deceased, was much on the lower side. Having regard to his age and the amount of dependency, the proper multiplier would be 13. Thus, the amount of compensation on this count comes to Rs. 5,64,096. To this, a further sum of Rs. 15,904 need to be added on various other heads. Thus, the proper amount of compensation in...
Jagdish Vs. Kiran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC259
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Appellant-husband has filed this appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2002 passed by I ADJ, Ratlam in Hindu Marriage Case No. 35-A/1999.2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as void Under Section 11 of the Act and has granted permanent alimony to the respondent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month and also awarded damages of Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant in this appeal has only challenged the decree of permanent alimony and the decree for damages. He has not challenged the decree of nullity of marriage. The sole submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that when the marriage is declared null and void Under Section 11 of the Act, no relationship exits between the husband and wife, therefore, the Trial Court could not have granted damages and decree for permanent alimony and maintenance Under Section 25 of the Act....
Smt. Goma Bai and ors. Vs. Shivcharan Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC339
ORDER1. This miscellaneous appeal impugns an award dated 15.2.1997 passed by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 5/1996, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,60,400/- towards compensation in place of a claim of Rs. 13,77,000/-.2. It is said that on 19.12.1995, at about 10 O'clock, deceased Hakim Singh met an accident with a bus, bearing No. M.P. 07/F.0097. It is also said, that he was a mason by profession and was engaged at a daily wage of Rs. 100/-. It is also said that apart from professional income, the deceased was also earning agricultural income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum from his 5 bighas of agricultural land. That apart he was only aged about 45 years. The award in question is said to have been calculated only at a rate of his daily earning of Rs. 60/- even in the face of consistent evidence to show an earning of Rs. 100/- per day. The evidences also show that the deceased was a busy mason having been engaged for all 30 days whereas he has been ...
Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Mukut Singh Chandel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR874]; 2003(2)MPHT65; 2003(2)MPLJ555
S.S. Jha, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of W.P. No. 1866/2002, W.P. No. 2172/2002 and W.P. No. 2173/2002. Common question is involved in all four petitions that whether provisions of M.P.I.R. Act is applicable to the petitioner-firm, which manufactures soaps. 2. Respondent/workman has filed a petition in the Labour Court under the provisions of Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.I.R. Act') regarding their removal from service. Petitioner has filed the reply and raised a preliminary objection that provisions of M.P.I.R. Act is not applicable to the petitioner/industry, therefore, no orders can be passed. Labour Court has held that in the notification under Section 1 of M.P.I.R. Act industries involved in manufacturing chemical and chemical products are governed by the provisions of M.P.I.R.Act and manufacture of soap is a manufacture of chemical product. Industrial Court has dismissed the appeal. 3. Section ...
Kalyanmal Vs. M.P. Financial Corpn.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC451; [2004]122CompCas717(MP); 2003(3)MPLJ329; [2004]50SCL558(MP)
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether the right conferred to the Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (for short called 'the Act') extends over the property mortgaged with the Corporation by a guarantor or not? To appreciate the issue, few facts need to be taken note of.2. The petitioner had mortgaged his property for securing a term loan that had been granted by the Corporation (Respondent No. 1) in favour of respondent No. 2 for setting up of some Industrial Unit. As the loanee did not pay up the instalment dues, the Corporation served the notice on the petitioner (Annexure-E) calling upon him to clear the demanded dues with interest failing which the properties mortgaged by the petitioner in favour of Corporation should be taken over, it is against this action of the Corporation, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They...
Radhelal Basant Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC154(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of the reassessment notice issued under Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 dated June 25, 2002(annexure P-15). It was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner by his order, dated December 13, 2002 Annexure P-17), and hence, writ.2. So the only question that arises for consideration is, whether reassessment notice issued for the period 1994-95 (April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995) is legal or not ?.3. It is not in dispute that the assessment for the year in question was completed on June 30, 1998 (annexure P 7) and later after remand by the Appellate court, it was completed on June 27, 2001 (annexure P 14). The reason for reopening of the assessment was also conveyed to petitioner alongwith the impugned notice. It is worth to quote in verbatim in Hindi :izdj.k ds ijh{k.k ls ik;k x;k fd vkids }kjk djfu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokfg;k fnukd 26-6-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »