Madhya Pradesh Court March 2007 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.
Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ560
A.K. Mishra, J.1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. Hi...
Meerabai and ors. Vs. Kamlesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2206
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant widow, child and parents of the deceased Gajriya alias Gajju, aged 25 years, have assailed the award dated 12.1.2000 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwani in Claim Case No. 58 of 1998, by which the claim has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that it was on account of rashness and negligence of Kamlesh, NA 1, that injury was caused to him to which he succumbed eventually.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Gajriya was aged 25 years and his source of livelihood was income as labourer. On 5.2.1998 he was called by Dinesh to work as labourer. Although, the deceased was not inclined, he was asked to sit on the pillion of the motor cycle for being taken to the place where he was required to work as labourer. However, before deceased Gajriya could properly sit on the said vehicle the rider of the motor cycle started t...
Anita and ors. Vs. Dharmendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2086
Abhay Gohil, J.1. This is the claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award passed by Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 84 of 2000 passed on 28.2.2001 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,79,500.2. Briefly stated that on 30.4.1996 the deceased Vinod Kumar had gone towards Vikkey Factory where he was sitting with Kailash, at the same time at about 11 to 11.30, one Maruti van bearing No. UP 93-B 5975 came from Dabra side, respondent No. 1, Dharmendra was driving the said Maruti van, he was driving the same rashly and negligently, he came on the wrong side and did not apply any brakes or blow the horn and hit Vinod Kumar and Kailash, who were sitting on the roadside, both had sustained severe injuries and died on spot. Thereafter, the driver Dharmendra, respondent No. 1 leaving Maruti van on the spot ran away from there. The matter was reported to P.S. Jhanshi Road where crime was registe...
Gyarsi Lal Vs. Rajesh Kunwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT79
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-4-2006 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Neemuch in Civil Execution Case No. 10-A/92-97, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed, the present revision petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the basis of arrears of rent, in which it was alleged that petitioner is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 300/- per month and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 14-8-1989. The suit was contested by the petitioner. During pendency of the suit, the compromise took place between the parties on 21-2-1997 whereby the petitioner agreed to vacate the suit accommodation on or before 20-8-1997. It was also agreed that the respondent relinquishes the claim of arrears of rent and if the petitioner commits default in vacating the accommodation on or before 20-8-1997, then the petitioner will be liable to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 14-8-1989 t...
Khursheed Ahmad Vs. Mehrunnisha and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT352; 2007(3)MPLJ74
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 18-8-2006 by Fourth Civil Judge Class-1, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 340-A/2004 by which the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil procedure Code was rejected.2. The objection of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that no notice as required under Section 401 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was served on the Corporation. So the suit itself was liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed by the petitioner to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harmesh Chandra Dua v. Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior 2005(4) MPLJ 38 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Jal Praday Karmchari Kalyan Sangh v. Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Jabalpur 2005(3) MPLJ 145 and submitted that this revision be allowed and the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may be dismissed.3. The Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the contention and submitted as under:(i) That a notice was duly served on the Commiss...
Babulal JaIn Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR380(MP)
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. No. 106/JAB/2006 whereby the Tribunal in the absence of counsel for the appellant dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by 12 days.2. The submission of Mr. Sanjay Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant is that due to unavoidable circumstance he could not appear before the Tribunal and further the Tribunal should have either adjourned the matter or should have afforded an opportunity to put forth the case of the appellant with regard to the condonation of delay of 12 days. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has taken recourse to hyper technical view in regard to the sufficient cause, though application explaining the condonation of delay of 12 days was filed.3. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior Counsel appearin...
Hav. Gambhir Singh Chahar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)MPHT238
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing his Annual Confidential Report (for short' ACR') for the year 2001. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Naib-Subedar ignoring the ACR for the year 2001 and to grant him promotion with effect from December, 2004/January, 2005 or April, 2006 with all consequential benefits. During the course of arguments the petitioner has restricted his relief to the grant of promotion with effect from 1-5-2006 only and has given up his claim for promotion with effect from December, 2004/January, 2005.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Signalman on 9-3-1981. He was subsequently promoted as Naik in the year 1988 and Havildar in the 1991. The next promotion post of the petitioner is Naib-Subedar. It is submitted that when the petitioner's...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Tripathi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1274
Abhay Gohil, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the connected three appeals, M.A. Nos. 138, 140 and 194 of 2000 and cross-objections filed in M.A. No. 140 of 2000 by the claimants, as all the appeals arise out of the common award passed by Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case Nos. 48 and 58 of 1992.2. The claimants as well as insurance company both have filed aforesaid appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.1992 deceased Rajendra Kumar Tripathi and deceased Kamal Kumar Jain had gone to Shivpuri and were coming back in the evening at 5.30 p.m. in a jeep No. MP 07-B 0630. The said jeep was being driven by Chandra Vikram Singh Chauhan, the respondent No. 2. At about 7.30 p.m. near village Virawali on A.B. Road one truck was coming from opposite side, near culvert, it dashed the jeep. As a result of this accident the jeep fell down in the culvert which was 15 ft deep. The truck d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›