Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vaikunthi Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC410; 2006(4)MPLJ432
Abhay Gohil, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three connected appeals which arsise out of the same accident and the same award.2. In M.A. Nos. 527/2002 and 534/2002, Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the cheque of the premium was dishonoured and policy was cancelled and intimation of the cancellation was given to the owner of vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable, though the right of recovery has been granted in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. In M.A. No. 529/2002, claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.8.1995, deceased Jagdish Singh Kaurav along with his wife Mrs. Asha had gone to Tighra Dam on their Hero Pitch bearing No. MP07/G-3237. When they were coming back near village Maharajpura on the main road, near turning one bus bearing No. MP07-N-0002, was being driven by respondent No. 1 - Rudrapal Singh very rashly and negligently without ap...
Kalyan Sahai and anr. Vs. H.D. Yadav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC307
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal, appellant challenged inadequacy of the compensation of Rs. 2 lakh awarded by the learned XIX MACT, Indore vide award dated 31.3.2004. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the award of compensation in lump sum has been deprecated and in each case the income should be assessed and applying proper multiplier, compensation should be awarded.2. Since the controversy before us is confined to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation, we need not refer to other facts except that when the deceased was travelling in a Maruti car along with his friend, it collided with the offending vehicle bearing registration No. NH-04-H-4838.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500 as evidenced from his salary certificate (Ex. P/6). However, since the deceased was commuting to Ghatabillod for work, we are of the view that he must, at least, be spending Rs. 500 on fare. The net salary thus comes to Rs. 3,000 pe...
Gendalal and anr. Vs. Raghunath (Dead) Kamod Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ510
Rajendra Menon, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Tiled by the defendants was admitted on 16-1-97 for consideration of the following substantial question of law:(I) Whether after dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff, an appeal by one defendant against another defendant is maintainable?2. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff Balram against the defendants so also against the respondent No. 2 Kamod Singh inter alia claiming his right to. the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. Various issues were framed and finally it was held by the Trial Court that the claim made by the plaintiff is not established, accordingly suit was dismissed. In the suit defendants Raghunath and respondent No. 2 Kamod Singh took a plea that they are in possession and they claimed their right by virtue of the sale deed dated 11-5-1972 executed in their favour. Even though the suit was dismissed a observation was made that defendant Raghunath an...
Cit Vs. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR95(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant assails the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, dated 29-1-2002, by which the Tribunal has reviewed its own order passed four years prior to the review application and has changed its conclusions.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 27-1-2001, in appeal for the assessment year 1991-92 allowed the appeal of the revenue after going through the law laid down in CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. : [1986]161ITR320(SC) as Section 80B(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was not on the statute. The revenue contends that before allowing deductions under Chapter VI-A, effect to all the provisions of the Act has to be given for determining the gross total income. The gross total income is defined in Section 80B(5) of the Act which reads as under :'gross total income' means the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deducti...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kishore Kumar Lalwani and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC247; 2008ACJ590
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 3.9.2004 passed by MACT, Neemuch in claim case No. 22/2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 17,66,000 has been awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 is the owner of a Mini Bus bearing Registration No. MP-14K/1917 which was insured with the appellant. A claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 alleging that on 30.4.1998, in the said bus respondent No. I along with other persons was going to attend a marriage party of one Susheela, D/o Dharampal, who happens to be friend of respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 at the relevant time. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the offending Mini Bus met with an accident, resulting which the respondent No. I sustained multiple fractures. It was further alleged that because of the accident, respondent No. 1 sustained griev...
Sapna and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ490
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 25.15.2004 passed by Fourteenth M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 37 of 2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed, the present appeal is filed.2. Short facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the present appellants on 11.3.2001 in which it was alleged that Sujanmal Jain was the father of appellants and was a practising lawyer. It was alleged that on 12.11.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. the deceased Sujanmal Jain was coming from Mhow to Indore on a scooter which was owned by respondent No. 2 bearing registration No. MP 09-1209. It was alleged that all of a sudden the offending scooter fell down in a ditch opposite to Utsav Hotel resulting which deceased Sujanmal Jain sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Choithram Hospital. Since he had sustained head injury, therefore, he was operated but because of grievous injuries, he passed away on 20.11.1994. In claim application which was file...
Savita Devi Vs. Sukhvinder Kaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: AIR2007MP146; [2007(2)JCR293(MP)]; 2006(4)MPLJ617
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. A judgment was delivered on 13-7-2006 in this appeal by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Gwalior. In the said judgment, two differing opinions were expressed by the learned Brother Judges. Under Rule 11 of Section 1, Chapter 1 of the High Court Rules, when in any appeal or civil matter is heard by a Bench of two Judges and the Judges composing the Bench differ on a point of law and state the point on which they differ, the proceedings shall be placed before the Chief justice for the purpose of nominating one or more of the other Judges to deal with the matter. This provision in Rule 11 Section 1, Chapter 1 of the High Court Rules came up for interpretation before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Laxminarayan v. Ramjidas 2001(3) MPLJ 410 and the learned Single Judge held that the said provision in Rule 11 of Section 1, Chapter 1 of the High Court Rules provides that the Division Bench must formulate the point of law on which the two Judges compo...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ184
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by an award dated 6.4.2002 passed by Eighteenth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 97 of 2002.2. The claimant Dilip Kumar filed an application seeking compensation for the injuries caused to him in the accident dated 25.4.1994. His right leg was amputated below knee level. It was alleged that the claimant was driving tractor No. MP 20-H 9293, which was going from Deori to Panagar. Truck No. MKK 5006 came from Jabalpur side and dashed against the tractor near village Kushner, owing to which claimant sustained serious injuries. He was under treatment when claim petition was filed. Subsequently, his right leg was amputated below knee level. According to the claimant the accident was caused owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. Truck was driven by Sheikh Pappu, owned by Sheikh Kallu and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The tracto...
Triloki Nath Pandey and ors. Vs. the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Dairy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)MPLJ152
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Keeping in view the identical nature of assail and the identic prayer for mitigation of the grievance, this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and is disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts exposited in W.P. No. 12904/2005 are enumerated herein.2. The petitioner, a village extension organizer working in Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., stood compulsorily retired after completion of service of 20 years by virtue of the impugned order dated 31-5-2003 by the General Manager of the aforesaid Union, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-8 on the foundation that a decision has been taken by the Cooperative Society to compulsorily retire him after taking recourse to Regulation 13(1) of the M.P. Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Bhopal (Employees Recruitment, Classification and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'].3. The facts that have been pleaded in great det...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manju and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ359
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 66 of 2002.2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Girish Singh, owner of truck No. UP 80-4-9161 was travelling in the aforesaid truck which was coming from Dhaul-pur to Agra. At village Barotha truck No. MP 06-E 4250 was stationary in the midst of the road without any indication-neither dipper nor parking lights were on. Due to that truck bearing No. UP 80-4-9161 which was driven by respondent No. 6 dashed against the stationary truck No. MP 06-E 4250. The deceased Girish Singh received severe injuries and due to the aforesaid injuries he died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police station, vide Crime No. 125 of 2002 and a case under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Both the trucks were seized. The respondent No. 4 is the owner of truck bea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »