Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Dilkhush and ors. Vs. Bherulal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC895; 2006ACJ2341
Deepak Verma and Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.1. This appeal is respondent at the instance of claimants, against the award dated 12.9.2000, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in M.V. Case No. 21 of 2000, whereby and wherein for death of one Siyaram, present appellants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 together with interest against respondents jointly and severally.2. This appeal is for enhancement. The No. 3 has also filed a cross-objection on 2.2.2005, under Order 41, rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code. Since said cross-objections are barred by more than 31/2 years, it has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused record.4. Deceased Siyaram was travelling in a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 14-G 4282 and MP 14-G 4283, respectively, on 16.12.1999. Said trolley was being used for transportation of soyabean from village Nataram to Mandsaur. According to claimants, Siyaram was worki...
Bherulal Vs. Usman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC829
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned Counsel for the appellant.None appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.1. Mr. S.V. Dandvate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2. Appellant, having been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,050/-, in M.V. Case No. 29/2000, decided by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, on 22.8.2000, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement.3. It has not been disputed before us that appellant, had sustained bodily injury on 24.9.1998 while he was travelling in an Auto, bearing Registration No. RJ09 532, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. All the occupants of the auto had sustained bodily injuries, but only three of them preferred to file claim petitions. Other two have also been awarded compensation, but have preferred to file no appeal.4. According to appellant, he was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 100/- per day. ...
Bheru Lal Vs. Usman and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC110
Deepak Verma, J.1. Appellant having been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,050, in M.V. Case No. 29/2000, decided by Add). Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, on 22nd August, 2000, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for enhancement.2. It has not been disputed before us that appellant had sustained bodily injury on 24th September, 1998 while he was travelling in an auto, bearing registration No. RJ-09-532, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. All the occupants of the auto had sustained bodily injuries, but only three of them preferred to file claim petitions. Other two have also been awarded compensation, but have preferred to file no appeal.3. According to appellant, he was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 100 per day. However, the Tribunal has assessed income of appellant at Rs. 50 per day and multiplier of 10 has been adopted. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that looking to the nature o...
Harmesh Chandra Dua and anr. Vs. Nagar Palika Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT454; 2005(4)MPLJ38
1. This appeal is filed by plaintiff against dismissal of his suit.2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondent. Plaintiff claimed that he owned a immovable property bearing House No. 40/955/3 (Old) now 40/1024 and the number of said house is again changed to 44/1034/1, which is situated at Jadhav Mahal, Khasgi Baazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Plaintiff contended that he has submitted a map for construction of the house under Section 294 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said map has not been approved by the defendant within the statutory period, therefore, sanction was under the deemed permission under Section 295 (3) of the Act. In spite of repeated requests defendant have not cared to consider the sanction approval of the map, therefore, under the deemed permission construction was carried out by the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that since permission has not been granted to him for construction...
Mohd. Shami Ansari Vs. the Western Coalfields Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ70(MP); 2005(4)MPHT456
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:(1) Direct the respondents to produce the manual lying down the eligibility criteria for contractors before this Hon'ble Court.(2) Quash the pre-qualification tender notice dated 7-7-2004 (Annexure P-2) that prescribes the impugned eligibility criteria;(3) Direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings and submit his bid for the construction of the High Level Bridge on the Tawa River in Betul;(4) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and just in the circumstances of the case.2. Facts of the case arc that the petitioner is a registered Civil Contractor for last 20 years and had undertaken several contracts and completed them successfully. The respondents floated tender dated 7-7-2004, Annexure P-2 for planning, designing and construction including surveying and Geo-Technical investigation for construction of Pro-stressed concrete High Level Bridge of 200 mtrs. alongwith total width of...
Himanshu Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT22
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has sought following reliefs :--(i) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter and bill demanding Rs. 19,11,846.07 and declare the same void and unexecutable.(ii) That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order confirming the enhancing the amount of Rs. 19,11,846.07 to Rs. 41,37,045/- by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and also declare the same null and unexecutable.(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 61,525/- received towards replacement of CT/PT instrument and amount of Rs. 2,73,900/- received by compelling the petitioner to pay towards the new connection charge along with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.(iv) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other nature to quash the surcharge levied and demanded at the rate of 30% ...
Bhanu Pratap Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT130; 2005(4)MPLJ545
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order passed by the Returning Officer exercising jurisdiction under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 read with the Rules framed for conducting elections as per the Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Nirvachan) Rules, 1997 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner and permitting respondent No. 5 to contest election in a quota fixed for Scheduled Tribe lady. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is not a Scheduled Tribe, lady and his objection has not been properly considered. It is stated that Returning Officer has illegally and arbitrarily rejected his objection with regard to candidature of respondent No. 5 and, therefore, petitioner seeks interference by this Court in this writ petition for permitting the petitioner to participate in the elections.2. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition and it is stated by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›