Madhya Pradesh Court January 2008 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.
Girdharilal Vs. Brajmohan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT302
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of connected Civil Revision No. 78/07. It arises out of the cross-suit filed by the applicant against the non-applicant herein.2. This is plaintiff's revision against the order dated 1-12-2006 passed by III Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Barwani in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 08/06. By the said order, the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the rejection of his application under Order 9 Rule 9, CPC was dismissed.3. Plaintiff filed a money suit against the respondent. On 21-12-2004 (wrongly mentioned as 27-12-2004 in Paragraph 2 of the impugned order), the suit was fixed for return of the Commissioner's report. Since the plaintiff and his Counsel were not present when the suit was called out, it was dismissed by the Trial Judge under Order 9 Rule 8 of the CPC. The applicant applied for recall of the said order and restoration of the suit on 8-1-2005. The application was opposed by the other side ther...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brijlata and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ791
S. Samvatsar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both these appeals as they arise out of the award dated 20.6.2003, passed by the Third Additional Member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,59,120 towards compensation to the claimants for the death of Nathuram who died in a motor accident.2. Misc. Appeal No. 675 of 2003 is filed by the insurance company challenging its liability to pay the compensation while Misc. Appeal No. 707 of 2003 is filed by claimants for enhancement of the award.3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased Nathuram along with his family members was going to Vaishno Devi. For that purpose, he borrowed a jeep from one of his friends bearing registration No. UP 75-9660. When the jeep reached near village Barhi, it dashed against another jeep coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, deceased Nathuram sustained injuries and succumbed to the...
Ravi Neal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT107
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 28-2-2007, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 321/05, allowing the application filed by the Investigating Officer for collecting the standard handwritings of the accused and for sending the same to handwriting expert.2. Applicant is facing trial under Sections 302/394 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and on 25-11-2006 the case was fixed only for recording the evidence of Investigating Officer. The evidence of Investigating Officer R. Sharma was partly recorded on 5/6-12-2006, but later on he filed an application praying for time to collect the standard handwritings of the accused and send the same to handwriting expert. During investigation the standard handwriting of the accused was collected and sent to handwriting expert. Report of the handwriting expert was filed in the Court. However, according to the said ...
Pandit Ramprasad Purohit and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT150
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. This order shall dispose of four writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 1678/2000, 2049/2000, W.P. No. 2050/2000 and W.P. No. 2463/2000, as an identical and common controversy is involved in all these petitions. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the imposition of bus stand fee (Asthai Dakhal Shulk) on the motor vehicles using the bus stand set up by the respondent-Nagar Panchayats. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W.P. No. 2463/2000.2. The petitioners are the holders of Particular Stage Carriage Permit (PSTP) and on the strength of the aforesaid permit, they are plying the buses/passenger vehicles on various routes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No. 2, Nagar Panchayat Khujner, has set up a bus stand in the municipal area Khujner. During the course of plying the buses by the petitioners, they also use bus stand Khujner for taking up and setting down passengers at Khujner. A resolution dated February 9, 20...
Babbi @ Jitendra and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT160
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Petitioners have filed this revision against the order dated 20-11-2006, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 36/2006, framing the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against them.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, as there is absolutely no evidence to infer that petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the petitioners had grabbed the money of deceased and had assaulted him, it cannot be said that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since no ingredient of abetment is borne out from the facts of the prosecution case, learned Trial Court committed error in framing charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.3. Learned Counsel for the S...
Ahmed Khan Vs. Sher Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR873]; 2008(4)MPHT372
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. This is claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. By the impugned Award, the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed by the Tribunal in view of provision contained in Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short '1948 Act') Tribunal found and held that the respondent Sirajkhan as also appellant were equally responsible for causing the accident. This finding is not under challenge. It is not disputed that on the fateful day, offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. Tribunal, however dismissed the claim petition in view of Section 53 of the 1948 Act only on the ground that the appellant had already received the lump sum amount of compensation and is getting monthly disability pension at the rate of Rs. 1300.82 from the ESI and as such, he is not entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Hence this appeal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned...
Harnarayan and ors. Vs. Urmila Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1276
1. Present appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 31.1.2004 passed by Twelfth Additional Member/Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Gwalior in Claim Case No. 35 of 2003, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 towards compensation for the death of Leela Sahu.2. The brief facts of the case are that deceased Leela Sahu is wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3. On 10.5.2002 she was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No. MP 07-H 7757. She was going from Gwalior to Bhopal. Said Tata Sumo was driven by respondent No. 3, Harisingh Kushwah, owned by respondent No. 4, Vikas Sahu and insured with respondent No. 5. The said vehicle met with an accident with a truck bearing No. MP 07-3116, which was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 2. Deceased Leela Sahu was injured in the said accident and died during the treatment due to injuries sustained by her.3. The claimants filed...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mani Ram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1012
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 3.11.1997 passed by Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Claim Case No. 93 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 63,750 to respondent No. 1 - claimant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization.2. The appellant in this appeal is challenging the award on the ground that the liability is limited as per the terms and conditions of Act policy, Exh. D1 and the learned Tribunal committed legal error in holding that the insurance company is also liable to pay the amount of compensation.3. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 140 and Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act') on 14.7.1995 on the ground that the deceased was working as a labourer and doing the work of loading and unloading of minerals. On 18.4.1995 he loaded the truck at the quarry and thereafter he was travell...
Ashok Singh Pal Vs. Smt. Manjulata
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP139; 2008(2)MPHT275
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order dated 10.10.07 Annexure P/1 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case no. 531-A/06 (Hindu Marriage Act) rejecting a application for adjustment of interim alimony granted in the proceedings held in the case in question i.e. case no. 531-A/06 pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are that petitioner/husband has filed a application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife. The proceedings have been registered as case no. 531 A/06 (HMA) and is pending before the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. In the said proceedings, respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses for the proceedings. In the application filed und...
Ramanuj Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT31
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 17-9-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12054/07 (S) under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was working as Deputy Manager with respondent No. 4-Co-operative Society and was posted as District Marketing Officer in the year 1983 in District Raigarh. On 14-6-1985, he was suspended and charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and thereafter he was served with an order of termination on 4-1-1994. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Co-operative Society and the Board of Directors quashed the order of termination and instead imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, but the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society did not allow the appellant to join his duties....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »