Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Prabhu Lal Vs. Babulal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC686
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal by the claimant arises out of the award dated 28th November, 2005-passed by the IInd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in M.V. Case No. 162/2003. By the impugned award, claim for compensation preferred by the appellant under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) was rejected.2. Briefly stated, relevant facts found by the Tribunal are as under:Appellant claimed that he was employed as driver with respondent No. 1, owner of truck bearing registration No. M.P.-09-D-1041. On 30th September, 2003 appellant was bringing the loaded truck to Indore and he was waylaid and assaulted by unknown armed miscreants. Miscreants not only robbed Rs. 1,500 but also caused injuries to appellant, consequently appellant is unable to work as driver any longer. Appellant, therefore, lodged claim under Section 163A of the Act, for compensation against respondents jointly and severally, they being owner and insurer of the t...
Cancer Care Trust Research Foundation Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC564
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the interim order dated 31.3.2006, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the Act called 'Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51/93)' (Annexure P-16).2. The impugned order is passed on an application made by the petitioner seeking stay of execution of the sale of the properties. It was declined by the Tribunal by holding as follows:Having heard the Counsel for the parties and going through the records it appears that appeal has been preferred against order dated 3.3.2006 by which objection was rejected, thereafter property was sold on 6.3.2006. Appellant without filing application for setting aside auction as per Rules 61, 62 of II Schedule of Income Tax Act has filed this appeal on 14.3.2006. Appellant has also not earlier impleaded auction purchaser and notice of appeal has yet to be served to the...
State of M.P. Vs. Bardanilal Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4676
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Counsel heard on the question of cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant by order dated 1-8-2005 of the learned Special Judge, Indore S.C. S.T. (Atrocities) Act cum Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Bail Application No. 2118/2005. The non-applicant is facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC pertaining to Crime No. 78/04 of PS, Rawji Bazar, Indore. It is alleged that an offence of cheating involving a sum of Rs. 7,64,000/-pertaining to the incumbency of the non-applicant as Chief Executive Officer of Jila Antya Vyavsayi Sahakari Vikas Samiti was committed.2. Several attempts were made by the said non-applicant to seek enlargement on bail but in vain. It is alleged that as many as eight applications were made before the Sessions Court without success and the efforts made twice before this Court also failed. These facts are indisputable.3. While considering the matter in relation to the bail application of a co-acc...
Vinod Tiwari Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR400]; 2006(2)MPLJ7491
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17-4-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Gwalior directing that the petitioner be detained in civil prison until next date of hearing.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was running a Motor Workshop styled 'Tiwari Motors' at Bhind Road, Gwalior. A proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Employees' Provident Funds Organisation, Gwalior against the petitioner and in the said proceedings an order for inquiry was passed. The petitioner initially appeared in the said proceedings and contended that his establishment was not covered under the Act inasmuch as the number of employees working in the establishment were less than 20. When after appearing on several dates the petitioner di...
State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. R.K. Chaturvedi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR175]; 2006(2)MPLJ374
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court on a question of law on which there appears to be conflicting opinions of two Division Benches of this Court,2. The facts briefly are that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 24-9-1980. His wife had two children and she went through a Family Planning Operation on 9-6-1984. Under a Circular dated 29-1-1979 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administrative Department, a Government servant who went through Family Planning Operation was to be given two advance increments. Accordingly, by order dated 16-7-1984 of the Executive Engineer, Benganga Project of the Water Resources Department, respondent No. 1 was granted two additional increments w.e.f. 9-6-1984. Thereafter, the pay-scales of Government servants were revised w.e.f. 1-1-1986 and the pay of the respondents was fixed in ...
Marble City Motors Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)7VST639(MP)
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner is an authorised dealer of M/s. Kinetic company and is involved in the business of sale of scooters and motor cycles manufactured by the said company. Petitioner is a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'an Act').2. For the year 1999-2000, the assessment was finalised by respondent No. 1, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax on March 28, 2003 vide order annexure P1 and it is held that the dealer has not paid the monthly tax within time and has also not deposited value added tax (hereinafter referred to as 'VAT') as per return. The VAT is deposited on less amount. Show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why penalty be not imposed under Section 69 of the Act.3. The petitioner contended that he has not suppressed any fact and expenses on the workshop and due to difference of opinion less tax was deposited and that he has not suppressed the fact in his return. Therefore, on account of delay in p...
Ram Prasad Mandal Vs. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ197MP; 2006(4)MPLJ216
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-2-1993 (Annexure P-l) by which he has been dismissed from service and also the order dated 18-8-1994 (Annexure P-2) by which the appeal preferred by him against the said dismissal order has been rejected.2. The petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank. He was posted in Amjhor Branch, District Shahdol during the period June, 1984 to May, 1986. The respondent Bank issued three memos dated 24-5-1986 (Annexure P-3), 28-5-1986 (Annexure P-4) and 11-2-1988 (Annexure P-5) to him alleging various irregularities committed by him during his posting at Amjhor. The petitioner replied the aforesaid memos immediately after receipt of the same. On 4-5-1990 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P-6) alleging the lapses/irregularities which were alleged in the aforesaid memos. Thereafter the disciplinary proceedin...
Vikram Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ560
ORDERJitendra K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice Annexure A-3, dated 18-2-1999 and the show-cause notice Annexure A-4, dated 16-3-99 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. It is urged that issuance of such show-cause notice by the Appellate Authority after passing the order in appeal is illegal and without jurisdiction.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was served with a charge-sheet and after holding regular departmental enquiry the order of penalty Annexure A-l, dated 28-7-1998 was passed. By which penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been ordered by respondent No. 3. Petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the order of respondent No. 3, before respondent No. 2. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal vide order dated 18-2-99 Annexure A-2 affirming the order of respondent No. 3. On the same date, i.e., 18-2-99, a show-cause notice was issued, to petitioner asking reply from him....
Devi Ahilya Bai Ghatge Uccha Shiksha Samiti and anr. Vs. State of M.P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR70]; (2007)ILLJ78MP; 2006(3)MPLJ541
Rajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the action initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Gwalior exercising powers in a proceeding pending before him under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner No. 2, this petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 20th March 2006 passed by the said authority issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest and restraining the said respondent from taking action under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.).2. Petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 and has established certain professional educational institute known as GICT College of Professional Education, Gwalior. Petitioner No. 2 is President of the said society which is kn...
Jainser and ors. Vs. Pancham Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC737
N.K. Mody, J.1. Since the respondent No. 3 is responsible for the payment of compensation, therefore, the service of notice on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not necessary and they be exempted from serving respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.3. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 18.2.1998 passed by MACT, Bhind in claim case No. 5/1997 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,66,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum, the present appeal has been filed.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that out of this amount Rs. 1,56,000 has been awarded towards loss of future income and Rs. 10,000 has been awarded towards other heads. It is submitted that the multiplier of 13 has wrongly been applied while age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident and as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of 17 oug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »