Madhya Pradesh Court April 2005 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.
Avadhesh Vs. Atar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC538
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. This is a claimant's appeal against the judgment and award dated 12th January, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 36/99.2. After the matter was argued for some time, the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 (Insurer) negotiated the matter with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and have filed a joint memo agreeing that the insurer (respondent No. 3) shall pay an additional lumpsum compensation of Rs. 55,000 (Rupees fifty-five thousand only) (in addition to Rs. 21,000 plus interest @ 12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal). The insurer (respondent No. 3) shall deposit the additional amount within two months.3. We find the terms of settlement just and reasonable. We accept the same and allow this appeal in part in terms of the Joint Memo. Parties to bear their respective costs....
Annapurna Malleables Private Limited and anr. Vs. State Bank of India ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT151; 2005(3)MPLJ390
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioners have sought following reliefs in this petition :--'(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue restraining the DRT, Jabalpur (respondent No. 5) from proceeding further with the trial of O.A. No. 130 of 2003 and/or to desist from taking any further steps in the said O.A.No. 130 of 2003.(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue quashing the entire proceedings registered as O.A. No. 130 of 2003 before the DRT, Jabalpur for the reasons (i) that it amounts to gross abuse both of the process of law as well as the process of Court and (ii) that the prior consent of the BIFR/AAIFR as contemplated by Section 22(1) of the SICA had not been obtained by the respondent No. 1.(c) To pass such further or necessary order or to give such further or necessary direction as may appear to the Hon'ble Court just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.(d) To award full costs of the present proceedings against the r...
Miss Pragati Kiran Naagar Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT134; 2005(3)MPLJ86
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition, the question involved is permissibility of prescribing higher qualification for the purpose of recruitment for the post of Lecturer (Business Management) than the prescribed minimum qualification by All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE').2. Petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement (P-7) for the post of Lecturer (Business Administration) in Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya. Petitioner was not called for interview as she did not possess the qualification mentioned in advertisement (P-7). Petitioner has submitted that the qualifications laid down by AICTE are binding, petitioner fulfills the qualification laid down by AICTE. AICTE is a body of expert technical education constituted under All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 10 of the Act empowers the Council to lay down the norms, staff qualifications, standard of courses. Thus, the ...
Ram Nath Vs. Baijnath and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP229; II(2006)BC87; 2005(3)MPHT332; 2005(4)MPLJ72
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14-5-1997 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 145-A/94 whereby the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 9-11-94 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Joura in Civil Suit No. 80-A/91 and thereby decreed the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for redemption of a mortgage.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for redemption of mortgage alleging that they are the Bhumiswamis of an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 663/1, having an area of one bigha and fifteen biswas situated in Village Agrauta, Tehsil Joura, District Morena. The land was initially owned by one Angad and the present plaintiffs are his heirs. Angad died in October, 1969. The plaintiffs required a loan for performing last rites of deceased Angad, therefore, they approached defendant No. 1 Ram Nath, for loan. On 18-1...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Sadhwani and Company
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT114; 2005(4)MPLJ325
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. In this revision petition preferred under Section 19 of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, (for brevity 'the Act') the applicant has called in question the legal presentableness of the impugned award dated 2-7-1994 passed by the Arbtiration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 76/1991, whereby the claim of the non-applicant was partly allowed and the applicants are directed refund the amount of Rs. 1,13,332/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of recovery, i.e., 3-7-1989.2. The non-applicant executed an agreement bearing No. 17 of 1987-88 for the construction of Ghorapachar Tank Group No. 'B' (balance work Ch. Nos. 28 to 40) Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal. The said work was completed by the applicant alongwith Item No. 10 as described in the agreement and only measurement of this item No. 10 was in dispute before the Tribunal as well as before this Court because at the time of final bill on 14-7-1988 a sum of Rs. 1,13,332/- had already been...
Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT201; 2005(3)MPLJ359
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Heard on LA. No. 3585/04 for substitution of legal representatives of the appellant. This application is opposed by the respondent on the ground that after the death of appellant Madan Mohan Sharma, right to sue does not survive and the appeal has abated.2. Facts of the case are that a petition for divorce was filed by the appellant before the Family Court. Decree for divorce was granted. After the decree for divorce was granted, an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex parts decree was filed by the respondent. Family Court allowed the application and set aside the decree for divorce. Order by which decree has been set aside has been challenged in this appeal.3. Questions arise in this appeal is whether order allowing application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC is appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.4. It may be mentioned that originally appeal was preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1, CPC. Office has raised an objection that the ap...
Mahakoushal Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR796]; (2006)ILLJ533MP; 2005(3)MPLJ7
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this petition, petitioner has assailed an order passed by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority. The main ground to assail the order is that Appropriate Government is not the Central Government, hence the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Central had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.2. The submission has been rejected by the Appellate Authority for the reasons mentioned in Para 5 of the order. Following reasons have been mentioned to reject the submissions:5. The facts and arguments reveal that basic question requires to be finalized in this appeal is whether the Central Government is the Appropriate Government under Section 2(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and whether the appellant's establishment belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government. The Controlling Authority in his order dated October 8, 2002 stated that the Mahakoushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank has been formed under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and it is incorp...
Manoj Vs. Baluram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC94; IV(2006)ACC208; 2006ACJ1794
Verma and Sapre, JJ.1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant, against the award dated 4.2.2004 passed by 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 136 of 2002. It has not been disputed before us that on 31.8.2001 appellant had sustained bodily injuries in a motor road accident. The accident was between two vehicles-truck No. MP 09-D 3147 driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 and truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 8575, driven by the appellant himself. According to the appellant accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. The aforesaid fact stands proved from the evidence adduced by the appellant. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000 to the appellant to be recovered from respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally. No liability has been fastened on respondent No. 4, owner of the truck whi...
Director of Income Tax (inv.), Bhopal Vs. Gulamnabi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN55(MP)
Arguments heard on the revision filed under section 401 of the Cr. P.C. against the order, dated 14-7-2004 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS, Indore in Special Case No. 16/04 wherein the applicant was to hand over the amount of Rs. 8,02,764 to the income-tax department was kept in abeyance.2. That on 4-4-2004, P.S. Juni, Indore, has seized from the house of respondent No. 1 Gulam Nabi, Brown Sugar weighing 1 kg. 500 gm. and 26 kg. Opium and also the cash of Rs. 8,02,764. That the case was registered against NA No. 1 under section 8/18 and 8/21 of the NDPS Act and thereafter wife of NA No. 1/accused Gulam Nabi, Le., NA No. 2 Noor Jahan was also impleaded as a accused for the offence punishable under section 29 of the NDPS Act. That after framing of the charge by the learned Special Judge, the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution is being recorded.3. That the applicant-income-tax department has initiated the proceedings under section 132A of the Income Tax Act against Gulam ...
Ambika Devi Vs. Kamlesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC276
ORDER1. With consent, arguments heard on merit.2. Appellant-Smt. Ambika Devi, a house wife, aged about 60 years had met with a road accident on 6.3.2002, while she was walking on foot and crossing the road to reach Annapurna Temple. She was hit by a scooter bearing registration No. MP-09-JM-1259 driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident supercondyloma and intercondyloma femur bone of right leg of this appellant was fractured and she was operated upon in Unique Hospital, Indore. She was confined in hospital for about one month and her permanent disability has been assessed at 19% by P.W. 3 Dr. Sunil Jakar, an Orthopaedic Surgeon. For the aforesaid injury sustained by her, 12th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore vide his award, dated 14.5.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 25 of 2003 awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The appeal has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »