Madhya Pradesh Court April 2004 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.
Ram Vinod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT426
ORDERRajeev Gupta, Ag. C.J.1. They are heard.This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11-7-2002 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 869/96, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order (Annexure P-2), by which his appointment was terminated.2. The petitioner is a handicapped person who was granted contract appointment by the respondents by order (Annexure R-I), dated 30-7-96 on the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM). Soon thereafter, however, his appointment was terminated by the impugned order (Annexure P-2) without assigning any reason. Having failed in his challenge to the said termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order of appointment and the provisions of r...
Sadhu Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR150(MP); 2005(1)MPLJ132
N.S. Azad, J.1. Under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 the petitioner has challenged the award dated 10th May, 1996 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 177/91, wherein the petitioner's entire claim for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs pertaining to balance payment of earthwork, escalation of labour wages and POL, security deposit and earnest money is disallowed and rejected with an exception of refund of Rs. 198.44 as balance of earnest money.2. It is not disputed that under an Agreement No. 47/DL 78-79 with Water Resources Department of Govt. of India, earthwork (balance work) in Chainage Nos. 723 to 724, 725 to 727, 761 to 762.50 and 766 to 777 of Tilwara Left Bank Canal of Upper Wainganga Project was given to petitioner Sadhu Singh, the amount of item rate contract was Rs. 3,33,059 the work order was issued on 20.04.1979 with period of contract as 6 months excluding rainy season and that the stipulated date of completion was 19th Ja...
Shankar Lal Soni Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT450
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Though this petition was listed for hearing on the question of admission, however, on the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they were heard finally.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of habeas-corpus, mandamus and certiorari, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:--(i) Direct the respondents to release the petitioner from their illegal detention forthwith.(ii) As stated earlier in the facts above, the petitioner is in the apprehension of his murder in jail by the jail authority including respondents in one way or the other. There-fore, his life may kindly be saved in the interest of justice and he may kindly be called by issuing a writ of habeas-corpus.(iii) Start criminal proceedings against the respondents by making an order for investigation on the allegations made by the petitioner in this petition.(iv) Award a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000)/- (say Rupees Five lakhs only) fo...
Kasturi Bai Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, P.W.D., Sub-division and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ254MP
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner, who worked, as an employee in Public Works Department, has knocked at the doors of this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated August 30, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, who in Gratuity Appeal No. 77/2002, preferred by the Controlling Authority, has accepted the appeal by holding that the employee would be entitled only to gratuity and no interest.2. As far as claim of gratuity is concerned, the said fact is admitted. The real crux is with regard to grant of interest. Submission of Mr. Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was delay in the payment of gratuity and the petitioner was not given the benefit as per the provision of the Gratuity Act, 1972. Mr. Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the appellate authority.3. The controversy raised in this case is more res integra ina...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simran Farms Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)190
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case we are of the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal on the question sought to be raised by the appellant in this appeal is already answered against the Revenue in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products Ltd. v. CIT, : [1998]229ITR123(MP) which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, was eventually upheld even by their Lordships of the Supreme Court.2. The short question that fell for consideration before the assessing authority was as to how the deduction available to the assessee under Section 80I of the Act should be calculated, with reference to the another provision, viz., under Section 80HH. This precise issue was examined by this Court in J.P. Tobacco Products (supra) and it was answered against the Revenue, thereby accepting the interpretation placed by the assessee while calculating the deduction available under Section 80I and 80HH of the Act.3. In this case...
Ku. Hema and ors. Vs. Surjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC222
P.C. Agarwal, J.1. On 22.4.1998 deceased Vijay Singh was driving jeep No. R.J./27/C/6632 between Nimbhaheda and Bhidar. The truck No. D.L./1/GB/ 1348 dashed the jeep from the front side causing death of Vijay Singh and serious injuries to the passengers of the jeep. Truck driver Surjeet Singh (R-1) was arrested and prosecuted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by police, Jawad. The Tribunal held the truck driver guilty of negligence. It held the truck owner (R-2) and Insurance Company (R-3) liable to pay compensation. Truck driver (R-1) and owner (R-2) did not contest. Insurance Company (R-3) did not file cross-objection or cross-appeal. Thus, all these points are no longer in controversy in the present appeal.2. The claim was filed by the father Sajjan Singh and grand-mother Sunderbai (A-3). The father of deceased died during the pendency of claim and his legal representatives Ku. Hema (A/1) and Ku. Kanta (A-2) were substituted in his place. The Tribunal he...
Vallabh Das Gupta and ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT89; 2004(3)MPLJ37
S.S. Jha, J.1. This case was referred under Section 89 to Shri T.C. Singhal, Advocate to mediate and help the parties to arrive at an amicable solution. After reference mediator arrange mediation talks between the parties and after the mediation sittings parties had settled their case in all the three appeals. In all the three cases decree for Rs. 9,69,198/- was passed against all the appellants. On mediation the appellants agreed to pay Rs. 7,70,000/- to the plaint/decree holder. Plaintiff has agreed to give up his claim for Rs. 1,99,198/- and accepted the amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- as full and final settlement of the case.2. Counsel for the parties appearing in this appeal states that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement with the aid of mediator Shri T.C. Singhal, Advocate.3. Considering the facts of the case the combined decree in all the three suits is modified to Rs. 7,70,000/-. The amount has been paid. This amount will include the interest as well as cost of the li...
Paramjit Kaur and anr. Vs. Murarilal Shankya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC184; 2005ACJ401
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by claimants against dismissal of their claim by the court of Mr. D.S. Jain, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 26 of 1992.2. Claimants filed a claim petition in the court claiming therein that a truck bearing registration No. MP 07-A 1978 driven by respondent No. 1 Murarilal on 16.3.1992 dashed against deceased Rajvansh Singh at the A.B. Road Sales-Tax Barrier, Morena. Accident occurred at 2.15 p.m. Rajvansh Singh died on the spot after the accident. Appellant No. 1 is widow of the deceased and appellant No. 2 is minor son of the deceased. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Harish Babu and was insured with the respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The deceased was truck driver. On 16.3.1992 while in service deceased was driving truck bearing registration No. DL-1G 4508, which was travelling from Agra to Nagpur. When his vehicle reached Sales-Tax Barrier near Morena, he stopped the vehicle and parke...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Begumbai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC757; 2006ACJ1964
Sapre and Tiwari, JJ.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the insurance company against an award dated 26.8.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 119 of 1998 by the M.A.C.T., Shajapur.2. Facts in brief are these:Noor Mohammed was a cultivator of village Ranthbhavar in Tehsil and Distt. Shajapur on 2.10.1997. he claims to have hired one Matador bearing No. MP 13-E 1104 belonging to Radheshyam, the non- applicant No. 1, for taking his goods (wheat and soyabean) from Shajapur to Dewas. He also accompanied with goods in the said Matador which was being driven by Govardhan, non-applicant No. 2. It so happened that while the loaded vehicle was proceeding towards Dewas, it dashed with the standing truck resulting in instantaneous death of Noor Mohammed. It is this incident that led to filing of claim petition by claimants who are legal representatives of late Noor Mohammed, i.e., wife and son, out of which this appeal arises. In the claim petition, it was alleged ...
Yogesh Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC735
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.2. Finding about the rash and negligent driving and the Accident caused by the vehicle owned by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 is not under challenge. Only challenge is regarding quantum of compensation.3. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that in the Accident deceased has suffered injury in the right leg, which resulted into fracture of tibia and fibula bone. Three-inch piece of bone was thrown out from the body at the time of Accident and fibula bone was fractured at number of places. Claimant was operated at Gwalior and thereafter he was further operated at Ahmedabad. However, the claimant admitted in the Court that his one leg is shorten by two inches, but he can walk without the aid of crutches. Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence. Claimant has claimed that his income is Rs. 5,000/- per month and he was unable to work for a period of one and half years. He h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »