Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Subhash Vs. Manish and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2579
J.K. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 25.8.2006 passed by learned Twelfth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 135 of 2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 28.5.2005.2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement. However, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed.3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in f...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT181
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the 2005 Act'), the defensibility of the order dated 19-9-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question.2. The appellant, who was appointed as a Constable on 3-12-1994 on compassionate ground, was issued a charge-sheet on the allegation that he had contracted a second marriage with one Maya Jatt despite the fact that his first wife, Prabha Jatt, was alive and there had been no divorce. Charge of bigamy was framed under Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. After the charge was framed, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted the report to the effect that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proven and he is guilty of the same. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and he passed the order of dismissal. On an appeal being preferred, the Appella...
Vinay Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT418
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Even though notices have been issued to the respondents, but during the course of hearing of this petition today it has transpired that the petitioner is an officer belonging to the All India Service Cadre and as the matter pertains to service dispute of a member of the All India Services, it is only the Central Administrative Tribunal which has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner was directed to address this Court on the question of jurisdiction.2. Shri M.N. Krishna Mani, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, argued that even though petitioner is a member belonging to the All India Services, but he seeks enforcement of a Notification issued by the Government of India and its compliance by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 257(1) of the Constitution of India and as the act of the State Government amounts to violating the fundamental rights available to the petitioner under ...
R.B. Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT193
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenging the order of transfer (Annexure P-1), dated 13-3-2008, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is working as a Range Officer, Forest Department Deori District Sagar. From the aforesaid post the petitioner is transferred to the Division Office at Sagar as Officer on Special Duty and in his place the respondent No. 4 Shiv Hari Garg, Deputy Ranger has been asked to temporary charge. Inter alia contending that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive in nature and has been passed only by way of punishment on the grounds of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioner inviting attention to this Court to the impugned order dated 13-3-2008 points out that in the transfer order the reasons for transfer is indicated to be non-payment of salary to the employees within time, misappropriation and financial irregularities ...
Sharad Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT422
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. The learned Single Judge, before whom this appeal against conviction under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') came up for consideration, has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench:Whether the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are substantive offences, if yes, being totally independent, the cases falling under it are required to be decided without taking aid of illustration (a) of Section 116 of the Penal Code? If yes, whether by taking the aid of Illustration (a) of Section 116 of the Penal Code holding that the offence under Section 12 of the Act is proved, the case of Rajaram v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) MPLJ 624, has been correctly decided?2. For a proper appreciation of the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer briefly to the legislative history leading to creation of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. This Section that is merely a rest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›