Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Ravindra Rawat Vs. Sheikh HussaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2786
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assails the adequacy of the compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar, in Claim Case No. 32 of 2004, by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 69,850 in relation to the injuries sustained by the applicant, aged 3 years, in a motor accident including amputation of his left hand below elbow.2. Insofar as the facts pleaded by the appellant are concerned, there does not appear any dispute between the parties. It was alleged that on 20.2.2004 at about 9 a.m., the respondent No. 2 driving a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 9758 collided with the appellant child causing severe injuries to him. On account of the nature of the injuries it became imperative to amputate his hand, which resulted in permanent disablement. The appellant was treated in the Primary Health Centre, Bagh, District Hospital, Barwani and in Baroda. In the treatment, it was alleged tha...
Satya Pal Anand Vs. High Court of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT448
ORDERDeepak Verma, J.Petitioner No. 1 Shri Satya Pal Anand appeared in person and argued the matter.1. The petitioner No. 1 as pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming several reliefs which are reflected in Paras 7, 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(e), 7(f), 7(g), 7(h), 7(i), 7(j) and 7(k) in the petition. Petitioner No. 2 is a practicing Advocate of this Court.2. In nutshell, basic and foremost prayers are that there should be a Circuit Court of this High Court at Bhopal, and further Indore and Gwalior Benches should also be empowered to entertain and decide all types of cases, including the vires matters.3. Looking to the prayer made, it is profitable to reproduce Section 51 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):51. Principal seat and other places of sitting of High Courts for new States.--(1) The principal seat of the High Court for a new State shall be at such place as the Pres...
Dr. Neeraj Agnihotri Vs. Vishnu Rajoria
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP230
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard on the question of admission.2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/ defendant has challenged the order dated 2-9-2006 passed by the V Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 33-B/2004.3. Briefly stated the respondent filed a suit for recovery of loan amount advanced to the petitioner on the basis of a receipt (Annexure P-l) executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent.4. After the aforesaid receipt was exhibited as Exhibit P-1 in the plaintiff's evidence and his cross-examination was over the petitioner defendant moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure before the trial Court praying therein that the said document Receipt (Exhibit P-l) being not duly stamped in accordance with Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act for short), therefore, the said document (Exhibit P-l) be impounded and be sent to the Collector.5. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner wa...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Bachan Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ122; AIR2007MP232
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is an application for review/modification of the order dated 8-8-2005 passed in MA No. 226/1995. Suffice it to say, the said appeal was preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for brevity 'the Act') whereby the Union of India had called in question the pregnability of the judgment dated 30-10-1998 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (in short 'the tribunal') in OA No. 5/98-A.2. This Court after referring to the definition contained under Section 123 (c) 'untoward incident' and the decision rendered in the case of P.A. Narayanan v. Union of India : [1998]1SCR899 expressed the opinion as under:10. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the observations of the Apex Court made in the case of P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India : [1998]1SCR899 :There is common law duty of taking reasonable care which must be attached to all carriers including railways....Though the said observation was made on a different context...
Ajay Kant and ors. Vs. Smt. Alka Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ264; I(2008)DMC1; 2007(4)MPHT62; 2007(4)MPLJ193
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. The instant petition is for impugning the order dated 18th January, 2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 848/07, whereby the learned Magistrate had issued notice to the petitioners on an application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Alka Sharma has filed one application under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioners. On which the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18th January, 2007, has issued notices to the petitioners. It has been averred in the application that the respondent has married with petitioner No. 1 on 16th of May, 2005 at Gwalior. For a period of 4-6 months she became pregnant and thereafter the petitioners started harassing the respondent demanding Rs. 2 lacs and one Maruti car from her parents. As the father of the respondent is a pensioner...
Management, Mission Middle School and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ388MP
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. They are heard.The present petition is filed by the Educational Institution challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority, which is Annexure P-5 to the petition. The petitioners have also challenged the order in review, which is Annexure P-7 to the petition.2. The respondent was a Teacher and after his retirement he filed a case claiming gratuity. The Controlling Authority held that the respondent was an employee and the Educational Institution is an establishment within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Thereafter, the Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay gratuity to the respondent-employee by an order dated November 28, 1992 within a period of 30 days. The issue before the Controlling Authority was also raised that whether the respondent was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Act? The said issue was decided against the petitioner whereby it was held that the petitioner-institution has to pay the gratuity...
Ashok Kumar Patel and ors. Vs. Ram Niranjan Dubey and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT419
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. Through this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28-9-2006 passed by the II Civil Judge Class II, Mauganj, District Rewa in Civil Suit No. 55-A/04 by which while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') he has issued a commission for investigating the facts as to (i), who is in possession of the suit land, (ii) who is raising construction on it or on the part of it and (iii) as to how many plots are situated on the disputed land.2. Shortly, stated the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents. In the said suit the petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction praying therein that during the pendency of the suit the respondents/ defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the ...
Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs. Dayal Singh Gaur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT189
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 126-A/2005 whereby her application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') has been rejected.2. Briefly stated, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession and removal of encroachment from his land against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. During the pendency of the said suit the second respondent/ defendant No. 1 sold the disputed property to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 29-10-2005. On getting knowledge of the pendency of the aforesaid suit in regard to the property purchased by her, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC seeking her impleadment as defendant in the said suit. However, the said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned o...
A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC546
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. M/s. A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, represented by Shri Sanjay Garg Director, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging communications made vide Annexure P/l dated 25.1.2007 by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 cancelling a contract granted for collection of user fee in National Highway No. 3, imposing of penalty of Rs. 2,41,097/- and forfeiting the performance security to the tune of Rs. 2,20,00,125/-, and letter Annexure P/2 dated 27.1.2005 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to respondent No. 6. Bank seeking revocation of a Bank guarantee for Rs. 2,20,00,125. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that National Highways Authority of India is incorporated under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (hereinabove referred to as 'Act 1988'). It is a Statutory Authority discharging functions as contemplated under the Act, 1988. The Act of 1988 and the National Highway...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›