Madhya Pradesh Court October 2005 Judgments
Dewakar Shukla and ors. Vs. Ashok Thakur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ2517; 2006(1)MPHT478
ORDERS.S. Dwivedi, J.1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for brevity). Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 27-4-2004 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 26/2002 whereby the appellants claims for Rs. 12,00,000/- compensation amount has been dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that the deceased Sanjay @ Radhey Shayam Shukla was the son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of the appellant No. 3 and father of the appellant No. 4. On 2-5-99 deceased Sanjay @ Radhey Shayam was travelling in a Mini Bus bearing No. M.P. 20 C 9907 going to Narsinghpur. Aforesaid Bus was driven by respondent No. 1, the registered owner of the Mini Bus was respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the respondent No. 3 New India Insurance Co., Jabalpur. On the way near Village Kund...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Praveen Nahar Vs. Krishan Gopal Sanghi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP89; 2006(1)MPHT485; 2006(1)MPLJ83
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 8-9-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Original Suit No. 2-B/2002 by which the Trial Court decided the admissibility of a document and held that it is a Bond within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and directed that on payment of appropriate stamp duty, document shall be admissible in evidence.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has challenged the order on the following grounds:--(i) That, the said document is not a Bond within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and in fact it is an acknowledgment of loan accompanied by a promise to pay.(ii) That, the document is not covered under the definition of Section 2(5) of the Act.(iii) Reliance is placed to the judgments of Single Bench in Mannalal Nanhelal v. Sitambernath Ramhirdelal, 1961 MPLJ 169 and Nandram v. Vardichand, 1975 JLJ-SN 7 and submitted that the order passed by the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjanbai and ors. Vs. Manish and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC727
ORDER1. Since the dispute between the parties is only with regard to the just compensation, with the consent of the parties, after granting condonation of delay of one day in filing this appeal, the appeal itself was finally heard.2. By this appeal the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 17th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, vide award dated 26th October, 2004 in Claim Case No. 330/2002, the appellants as the legal representatives of deceased Harakchand applied under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 15.00 lacs but on the basis of the material brought on record, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,80,000. Finding that the compensation is inadequate, the appellants have appealed to this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. According to the case of the appellants, on 10.2.2002, the deceased Harakchand in pursuit of his official duties had gone to village Kasravad. While he was returning to In...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC615
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.4.2005 of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in S.T. No. 323/2004 by which the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 306, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case relates to the death of Mamtabai who was married to Manoj about six years prior to the date of her death on 15.7.2004. It was not disputed that the two respondents were also living with the deceased and her husband in Police Quarter C/17, Police Lines, Ujjain. According to the prosecution, on 15.7.2004, at about 8.00 p.m., Gitabai raised an alarm which attracted persons from the neighbourhood who witnessed that Mamta had locked herself in a room and after pouring kerosene over her, she had set herself afire. The door of the room was broken open, steps were taken to extinguish the fire by splashing water, but, by that time, she had been completely burnt and she was then taken to the District Hospital, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Siddharth Soya Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]69SCL28(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by two companies known as M/s. Siddharth Soya Products Pvt. Ltd. (for short hereinafter called as transferee company) and M/s. Nobal Grain India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as transferor company). It is filed under Section 391, read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, for according sanction by the court for the Scheme of arrangement/amalgamation/merger whereby entire business of manufacturing, processing and refining Soyabean Oil Seeds and other vegetable oil and other business as set out in detail in memorandum and Article of Association as also in scheme (Exhibit - A) of Transferor company shall amalgamate/Merge/Vest with the Siddharth Soya Products Private Limited ie., Transferee Company on the terms set out in the Scheme of amalgamation (Exhibit - A).2. The Scheme of Amalgamation is sought to strengthen and consolidate the position of the amalgamated/resulting Company which will enable the amalgamated/resulting Company to parti...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyub Khan Vs. Mpsrtc and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC62
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.6.2001 passed by 1st AMACT, Khargone in Claim Case No. 37/2001 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that appellant was driver of the truck bearing No. MP09 K 6366. On 25.1.1999, a bus bearing No. CIW 7263 which was owned by respondent No. 1 was coming from opposite direction. At the time of over-taking, the bus dashed the truck of the appellant from the back side resulting with the truck of the appellant fell down and appellant sustained injuries. Appellant was hospitalized with effect from 25.1.1999 to 28.1.1999. Appellant sustained fracture in his hand, hence claim petition was filed.3. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement wherein it is submitted that no c accident took place by the bus of respondent No. 1. It was submitted that truck of the appellant fell down itself and respondent No. 1 is not responsible for the same. Hence, it was pra...
Tag this Judgment!Ramla Construction Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT423; 2006(1)MPLJ234
ORDER1. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred as 'the Adhiniyam') assailing the award dated 28-2-2003 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 22/1991, by which the reference application of applicant has been dismissed as barred by time.2. The facts in short of the case are as under:-Applicant was awarded a works contract for the construction of Spill Channel of Matiyari Irrigation Project. On 21 -11 -1981, the work order was issued and the last date of completion of work was 20-11-1982. The work could not be completed and after following process, concerned Executive Engineer rescinded the contract on 30-1-1984. Applicant aggrieved by the order of Executive Engineer made a reference to the Superintending Engineer under Clause 3.3.29 of the contract on dated 22-3-1984. The Superintending Engineer decided the matter finally on 31-12-1984 and rejected the claim of the applicant. O...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdamba Oil Agency Vs. K.S. Oils Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT427; 2006(33)PTC389(MP)
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 27-6-2005 passed by learned Distt. Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 2005.2. Learned Distt. Judge, has allowed an application for stay of the suit in question pending before him under Section 10 of CPC, thereafter, has proceeded to consider and decide certain applications interlocutory in nature filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the respondents, petitioner feels aggrieved by the aforesaid action of learned Distt. Judge, Morena.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has filed the suit in question being Civil Suit No. 3-A of 2005 which is pending in the Court of Distt. Judge Morena it is alleged by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit that the petitioner/defendant in the suit so also the plaintiff are engaged in manufacturing and sale of mustard oil and both are using a common trade mark, i.e., ('double Sher'). It is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashma Bai and ors. Vs. Darshanlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1672
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 13.7.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gohad, District Bhind, in Claim Case No. 14 of 1995.2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed this claim petition alleging that Govind Singh, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 died in the motor accident on 20.3.1995. At the time of the accident he was travelling in jeep No. MP 9-A 0963. Tempo No. MP 06-9994 which was coming from opposite side dashed against the jeep which has resulted in the accident. According to the claimants both jeep as well as Tempo were driven rashly and negligently by the drivers which has resulted in the accident in which Govind Singh died. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and appreciating the same has passed the award of Rs. 1,24,388 in favour of the present appellants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annu...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Budhwani and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT382
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Learned Single Judge has made a reference in this revision. Following question has been referred for consideration in the Division Bench:-Whether the 'Food Inspector' Shri S.C. Gupta, could function as a Food Inspector in local area of Mandideep in absence of a notification assigning him the local area of Mandideep ?Learned Single Judge has referred the matter for consideration of the aforesaid question in the backdrop of the fact that it was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no notification issued by the State Govt. assigning the area of Mandideep to Shri S.C. Gupta, hence he could not function as Food Inspector in the local area of Mandideep. Reliance was placed upon Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954').2. Learned Single Judge has observed that it is necessary to issue notification to assign the local area to Food Inspector so that any person is free to verify whether his ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »