Madhya Pradesh Court February 2005 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ranchoor Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC848; 2006ACJ920
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 28.10.1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Gwalior (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 189 of 1998, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum towards compensation for the death of a 12-year old girl Manoj Kumari.2. The claimants have also filed cross-objections for enhancement of the amount of compensation.3. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the said award, as the vehicle was insured with the insurance company on 15.9.1986 at 3.15 p.m., while the accident occurred on 15.9.1986 at 6.45 a.m. Exh. D1 is the cover note mentioning this fact that premium was deposited by the insured on 15.9.1986 at about 3.15 p.m....
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Dandotiya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ851
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company praying therein that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Insurance company has also challenged the quantum of compensation contending that the compensation is on higher side. On the contrary, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 the claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.2. Counsel for respondents contended that the insurance company is jointly and severally liable with the owner and driver of the vehicle to pay the compensation.3. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that deceased Ramsanehee was a gratuitous passenger in the truck which is a transport carrier, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. He placed reliance on Apex Court decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma : AIR2004SC4338 . It is submitted that since the deceased was travelling in a truck, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Vs. Armstrong and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)21; 3(2006)BC294; 2005(2)MPLJ419
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Being aggrieved of the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District Dhar in Cr. Revision No. 38/2004 wherein the learned revisional Court maintained the order of the Trial Court dated 21.1.2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 169/2003, the petitioner has filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 2972/2004 and against the order dated 8.9.2004 passed by learned XV Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 564/2004, wherein the learned revisional Court maintained the order of the Trial Court dated 16.8.2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 1742/2002, the petitioner has preferred Misc. Criminal Case No. 4198/2004.2. Since common questions arc involved in both the petitions, the same are taken up together and dispose of by this common order.3. In both the above mentioned petitions under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner/accused, the core question for decision is whether the criminal complaint can be filed for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanu @ Imran and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT323; 2005(4)MPLJ521
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (in brief 'the Code') by the present applicants against the order dated 12-10-04 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T. No. 273/04 whereby direction for framing the charges under Section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of the same the charges are framed against the present applicants.2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 25-6-2003 at about 10.30 in the morning when the complainant Ms. Nandini was at her residence alongwith her father Ramdas Sharma at the same time applicants came there with common intention to cause death of the complainant and her father and by saying that they will end of the life of the complainant and her father assaulted them by hard and sharp object 'Chhuri' and also by sticks whereby the complainant and her father have received so many injuries, then incident was reported immediately to Police, Harda at about 1...
Tag this Judgment!Binder Singh @ Balbinder Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT321
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. Heard on admission.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-10-2004 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 2/04 whereby the application filed under Section 317 by the applicant has been dismissed and warrant of arrest is directed.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that during pendency of the said trial the applicant was directed vide order dated 29-9-04 by District Magistrate for externment from Bhopal and its adjoining districts under the provision of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and has been restrained to enter in the Bhopal District for one year. Therefore, the applicant was unable to appear before the Sessions Court on date on which the warrant for arrest was directed.4. Order of the District Magistrate has also been placed on record. According to this applicant has been restrained to enter in Bhopal for one year upto 28-9-05, therefore, it was not possible for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Suryakant Sapre Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT326; 2005(3)MPLJ99
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25-8-2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 301/02 whereby non-applicant No. 2 Dinkar Prasad Pandey has been acquitted from the charge of Sections 294 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, then the complainant/injured has preferred this revision petition against the above said order of acquittal.2. As per the prosecution case, 14-2-2001 one charge- sheet was issued to non-applicant No. 2 by the Divisional Manager of the M.P.S.R.T.C. Ratahara. The above said notice was entered by complainant in the Pune-Book of the office. As alleged, due to this, non-applicant No. 2 went in the cabin of complainant and abused him with filthily languages and in continuation of it one chair was thrown over the face of applicant by non-applicant No. 2. Complainant got injured, he received injury just near his eye and there was some rescuing by the departmental persons then the matter was r...
Tag this Judgment!Chandramani Prasad Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT326; 2005(3)MPLJ241
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.'Vigilantibus noa doermientibus jura subveniunt'.1. I have quoted this maxim because the present case has been filed after more than two decades.2. On 15-6-1973 the petitioner who was serving on the post of Field Assistant in Veterinary Department was transferred from Panwar, Rewa to Circle Chhatarpur, but he failed to join at transferred place. Thereafter it is being said that on account of stay order passed by Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, the order could not be implemented and thereafter on 3-6-1975 an order was issued by Director, Veterinary Services directing the petitioner to submit his joining report at Chhatarpur in pursuance to transfer order dated 15-6-73.3. According to the petitioner on 5th July, 1975 he submitted an application (Annexure A-6) for obtaining leave since, according to him, he was ill. According to him he gave his joining report on 1st September, 1975 at Chhatarpur, but he was not allowed to join. As per contention of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Frontier Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(MP)56; [2006]284ITR367(MP)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), are filed against the common order dt. 2nd Sept., 2004 passed by the Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in ITA No. 108/Jbp/2001 and ITA No. 91/Jbp/2001, respectively relating to asst. yr. 1994-95. The appeals have been admitted as the following common question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the CIT(A) without assigning any reason ?'2. The two appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the Revenue against the orders dt. 5th Feb., 2001 and 31st Jan., 2001, of CIT(A), Jabalpur, cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Act.3. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that paras 1 to 7 refer to the facts. Paras 8 and 10 refer to the arguments of the Departmental Representative. Para 9 refers to the arguments of the assessee. Thereafter, the appeals have been allowed by paras 11 and 12 extracted belo...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Vishvakarma Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR95]
Ajit Singh, J.1. Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the State.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 16.9.2002, Annexure A-11 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Rule 42(l)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 whereby he has been compulsouly retired after completing 20 years of service.2. According to the petitioner he was appointed in the year 1978 in the Water Resources Department on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill and was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 3.12.1992 vide Annexure A-7. His services were made permanent by order dated 1.4.1994, Annexure A-8. The petitioner has contended that but for minor punishments of censure and withholding of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 27.4.2002, Annexure A-10, he has a flawless service record to his credit According to him he was so ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maithli and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC191; 2006ACJ1781
Verma and Awasthy, JJ.1. Award dated 30.9.2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 76 of 2000 is being challenged primarily on the ground that amount of Rs. 6,91,500 awarded to the claimants on account of death of Khemraj, an agriculturist and a mason aged 35 years, is on higher side. learned Counsel for appellant submitted that permission under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was obtained.2. Deceased Khemraj was having his own agricultural land admeasuring 1.07 hectares in village Machaliya, wherein, he was carrying on his agricultural operation. Apart from the above, it was further averred that he was also carrying on work of mason, but, this has not been found to be proved. Deceased Khemraj was having a large family to be looked after, that is, 2 wives, 9 children and mother.3. On the strength of oral evidence adduced by claimants, the monthly income of deceased was assessed at Rs. 5,000. After the usual deduction of '/3rd that the deceased mus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »