Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Bharti Vs. Gujubai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ189
Rajeev Gupta and S.K. Kulshrestha, JJ.1. Since this appeal involves a short question, matter was finally heard.2. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assails the validity and propriety of the award dated 22.3.2002 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Umaria in Claim Case No. 54 of 2000 by which, exonerating the insurance company, compensation of Rs. 1,85,000 has been awarded to the respondents-claimants against appellantinsured.3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is twofold, namely, (1) the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded exparte against the owner without satisfying itself that summon of the Tribunal had duly been served; and (2) the insurance company could not have been exonerated since it was not a case that vehicle was being driven by person without licence but only a case where it was alleged that the licence was fake with no evidence to suggest that the owner had any knowle...
Smt. Shanta Deb Vs. Indraneel Deb
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT518; 2004(3)MPLJ609
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 17-1-2001, passed in Civil Suit No. 386-A/98 by IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur annulling the marriage between the parties under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. Shortly stated the facts are that the respondent/husband had filed a petition seeking decree of nullity of his marriage with appellant, by invoking provisions of Section 12(1) (b) and (c) of the Act on the ground that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud as the appellant/wife has been and is still suffering from schizophrenia and is unfit for marriage and procreation of children.3. Admittedly the parties are Bengali Hindus and married according to Hindu Rites on 21-1-1998 at Bilaspur. After the marriage the parties came to Jabalpur on 25th January, 1998. On 31-1-98 appellant/wife went to her pare...
Neetesh and anr. Vs. Sudhir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT483; 2005(2)MPLJ3
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard on the question of admission.2. By filing this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants owner and driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP/15/J/3098 have challenged the interim award dated 1-7-2004 passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 55/2004 by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Damoh.3. . Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the alleged injury of amputation of one phalanx of finger of the right hand of the respondent claimant is not an injury which will cover under the term 'permanent disablement' as defined in Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the interim award of Rs. 25,000/- is bad in law.4. Section 142 reads as under:--'Section 142. Permanent disablement.-- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred ...
Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Maheshwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT53; 2004(3)MPLJ632
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8-4-2000 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Misc. Civil Case No. 18/99.Shortly stated the facts are :--2. The respondent filed a suit No. 3-B/1998 for recovery of Rs. 3,37,292/- against the appellant company. As per order sheet of the Trial Court dated 10-12-1998, the Trial Court ordered to issue notice of suit to the appellant company at its Head Office, Hyderabad by registered A.D. as well as by ordinary post and fixed the case for filing written statement on 18-1-1999. On 18-1-1999 on the basis of acknowledgment of the postal department about receipt of notice, as none appeared for the appellant, the Trial Court proceeded exparte against the appellant. On 29-1-1999 exparte decree was passed.3. On 22-4-1999, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside exparte decree. It w...
Shiv Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. Manishchand Sinha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT475
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The appellants fifed Civil Suit No. 6-B/2001 before the Fifth Additional District Judge, Chhindwara for recovery of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest. The plaint averments in brief are :--1.1. The first respondent is the legal heir of late Smt. Jugnoo Bai, and adjudicated insolvent. A composition scheme was filed by the first respondent before the Insolvency Court for acceptance under Section 38 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The Court fixed the matter for consideration of the said scheme on 9-4-1991.1.2. The first respondent expecting that the composition scheme would be accepted and that he would be appointed by the Court as the 'Appointee' (person in whom the properties of the insolvent would vest with power to sell the properties of the insolvent and deposit the proceeds in Court for distribution among the creditors), entered into an agreement to sell the immovable properties of the insolvent measuring 1,63,936 sq. ft. (less lands already sold to ot...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parmanand and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC728
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by Insurance Company on the ground that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as vehicle was driven in violation of policy of the insurance. Respondent No. 1 has filed cross-objection.2. Facts of the case are as under:Respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 6,19,000/-. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was travelling in a goods carriage which met with an Accident between Myana and Guna and resulted into permanent disability. On 14.5.1992 at about 10 'o clock in the morning respondent was travelling in a truck No. MP06/4245 from Myana to Guna. Respondent has paid fare of Rs. 4/- for the journey and boarded the goods carriage along with one bag of wheat. The vehicle was driven with rash and negligent manner, which resulted into overturning of the truck. Respondent claimed that he has suffered permanent disability and filed the case.3. Appellant has taken a specif...
Dhar Coal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC264(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.With the consent of parties petition is heard finally.1. The challenge in this petition is essentially to advance tax notices issued by respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax in his capacity as an assessing officer under Section 33(3) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994. These notices are for the period April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002, April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003 and April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 respectively asking the petitioner to pay an advance tax amounting to rupees thirty three lakhs, thirty-five lakhs and ten lakhs and fifty thousand respectively.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as a dealer has filed a return for the periods in question as required under Section 26 of the Act stating therein that they are not liable to pay a tax on commodity called coke manufactured from coal. It is on this basis, the case of the petitioner is that they are not liable to pay tax on the commodity in question. This position has been dispute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›