Madhya Pradesh Court February 2006 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.
Shivnarayan and ors. Vs. Rathi Motors and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC48; 2007ACJ2500
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 4.7.2003 passed in Claim Case No. 3 of 2003 by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur.2. The appellants preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming that Rs. 6,00,000 be awarded to them by way of damages for the death of deceased Bhagwantabai. The appellant No. 1, Shivnarayan is the husband of the deceased Bhagwantabai while the other appellants are her children.3. The learned Tribunal has held that Bhagwantabai had died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 when he drove a tractor bearing engine No. NGH 16307 and chassis No. 16307-F-1 on 31.12.2002 at 4.15 p.m. at Ranthbanwar Berchha. The learned Tribunal has held that respondents are liable for paying the compensation to the appellants, but instead of awarding Rs. 6,00,000 as damages learned Tribun...
Kamal Kant Shrivastava and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ317
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') the appellants as legal representatives of the original owner, namely, Ramratanlal Shrivastava have called in question the pregnability of the award dated 11-1 -1999 whereby the Reference Court has determined the quantum at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land in question.2. The facts which are necessary to be stated are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of acquisition of the land admeasuring 5.84 acres situated at Ward No. 7 Bina Itava. It is relevant to state here that the beneficiary, namely, M.P. Electricity Board had entered into correspondence with the predecessor-in-interest and others for indicating the price so that the Board could take steps for acquiring the land. One Anand Kumar agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 17,800/- per acre to the Board....
Welcome Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT123
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Petitioners are distillers engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of country spirit in the sealed bottles. They have challenged the conditions of tender notice dated 21-12- 2005 issued by the second respondent Excise Commissioner of Madhya Pradesh by which tenders were invited from the distillers for grant of licence(s) under provisions of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995 to supply country spirit through bonded warehouses to the retail sale contractors in the sealed bottles in the area of 24 districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh for the period commencing 1st April, 2006 and ending with 31st March, 2007.2. In W.P. No. 258/2006, Welcome Distillery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. the challenge is to Clauses 2 and 3(ii) of the tender notice. In W.P. No. 91/2006, S.G. Distilleries v. State of M.P. and W.P. No. 186/2006, Cox India Ltd. v. State of M.P. the challenge is to Clause 2 of the tender notice. In W.P. No. 1369/2006, Cox India Ltd. v. State of...
Mangilal S/O Peeru Banjara Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau (Neemuch)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ385
S.C. Vyas, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, NDPS Act Neemuch dated 10-7-2003 in Special Case No. 79/2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18(c) or in alternative Section 8 read with Section 18(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, this appeal has been preferred.2. The short facts of the case are that on 3-5-1998 at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning Narcotics Commissioner, Neemuch along with other officers of his department was checking vehicles on Neemuch-Chhitod Road at Ghasundi bus stand, during such checking bus bearing No. RJ-9P/0927 was stopped by the checking party and when passengers were checked then it was found that two persons sitting on seat Nos. 44 and 45 became uncomfortable seeing the checking party. Their name and addresses were ascertained by the checking par...
Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Kaushal Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ33
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 3-8-1998 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1981 whereby the Court has decreed the suit for declaration of possession and mesne profits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that the House No. 251 was owned by Shankar Lal Cheetarmal, his name was recorded in the Municipal record since Samvat 2002. Pyarelal who was natural son of Nemi Chand was adopted by Shankar Lai somewhere in 1925 when he was 4-5 years of age. Nemichand had two other sons Dhannalal and Pannalal. Pyarelal died in the year 1948-49, while Shankarlal died in the year 1951, at that time present plaintiff was minor. Sonibai wife of Pyarelal and Chhutanki Bai wife of Shankarlal were looking after him, at that time Nemichand, who was residing in Rajasthan came to Shivpuri and started looking after the business as Ammuktiyar. Nem...
Nagar Palika Nigam Vs. Gopal Krishna
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ515
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant challenging judgment and decree dated 15-10-1999 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 35-A/91.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present appellant-defendant alleging that he is owner of House No. 29/998/1, Hanuman Chouraha, Lashkar, Gwalior. The plaintiff had purchased the said house from his ex-owner Jugal Kishore vide registered sale- deed dated 29-6-1988. The house was purchased for residential purpose. According to the plaintiff, he had filed an application for mutating his name in place of Jugal Kishore on 7-3-1989 and his name was mutated in the municipal record. Thereafter he sought a permission from the defendant Corporation for construction of a building, which was granted on 29-4-1991 vide document Ex. P-l. It is alleged by the plaintiff, he commenced the construction...
Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC154
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 5.3.2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 235 of 1998. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Bheru Giri, who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent?2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, w...
Mukesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ229
ORDERS.S. Jha, J. 1. Following question of law is involved in the aforesaid revisions :Whether in the absence of any proof, contractor is entitled to claim loss on account of infructuous overhead expenses and loss of profit ?2. Tribunal while rejecting the claim for loss of profits and overheads placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Saluja Construction Co. v. State of M.P. Civil Revision No. 2136/1995, decided on 7-9-1999 and held that the claimant must prove the actual loss of profit and on failure to prove loss of profit, contractor is not entitled for loss of profit. It is held in Para 36 of the Award as under:In this case, petitioner has claimed Rs. 50000/- as loss of profit but has not produced any evidence to prove extent of profit. He has claimed loss of profit on fixed percentage basis. It is true that contractor is not expected to prove the actual loss towards profit but he should have placed the material to show on what basis he estimates a parti...
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Misro Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC840
ORDERK.C. Sharma, J.1. Though this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 4.5.1992 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 to the claimants.2. Mr. Rathore appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that out of the accident more than one claim petitions were filed in the instant case and the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not deciding all the claim petitions together, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed only on this ground. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon K.R. Visalakshi and Anr. v. Pookodan Hamza and Ors. I (1989) ACC 30 (DB) : 1989 ACJ 600 wherein the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that Tribunal should have considered all the claim petitions together arising out of same accident.3. I have given an anxious consideration to the above argument and gone through the cas...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Uma Shanker (Dead) Through L.Rs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC405
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the award dated 13.8.1999 passed by First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra, District Gwalior in Claim Case No. 1/98.2. Facts briefly stated are that on 27.9.1997 the deceased Paritosh Bhatnagar was travelling on Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-07-KC-792, when he met with an accident with a jeep bearing registration No. MP-07-H-4876 coming from the opposite side. As a result of the said accident Paritosh died and his father, mother, minor brother and minor sister filed the aforesaid claim case before the Tribunal for compensation. As the jeep was insured with the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,600 as compensation to the claimants by the impugned award against the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned award the appellant has filed this appeal.3. Mr. B.N. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was unmarried and the age of the mother of the deceased was fifty years while the age of the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »