Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001ACJ648; 2000(3)MPLJ561
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Whether insurance company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400 per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from bus stand on 18.2.86, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station, Hanumanganj and case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000, since they were de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.986/2012 01.03.2013 Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A. No.14613/2012, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient reason has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the review petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.14613/2012 is allowed. Heard. This petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.287/1996. This Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2012 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the plea with regard to validity of quit notice was neither raised before the Trial Court not before the Lower Appellate Court. Since the plea of validity of quit notice is mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP205; [1970]76ITR404(MP); 1970MPLJ403
A.P. Sen, J.1. The question of law stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'A', at the instance of the Commissioner for the opinion of the Court is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,67,345 received by the assessee during the year under consideration is covered by the 2nd Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Section 5 of Finance Act, 1955.'2. The sum of Rs. 1,67,345/- represents the payment to the assessee, Capt. H.C. Dhanda on 28th January 1955 by His Highness Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar, the Senior Up-Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, in full and final settlement of his claim for damages for wrongful termination of his services as personal Adviser to his Highness. The whole question here is, were the moneys which the assessee so received after cessation of his office as compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 1955-56, part of his in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)MPHT60
R.P. Gupta, J. 1. The State has felt aggrieved from judgment dated 21-8-86 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Murwara in S.T. No. 101/83. The respondents were acquitted of the charges of dacoity and murder committed by them in the night between 27 and 28 September, 1982 at mid night in the house of PW 3 Ramkishore. They were armed with ilathies, Kodas and fire arms, broke-in to the house by breaking the doors of the house and attacked Ramkishore and his wife Sushila causing injuries to them. Sushila died as a result of those injuries on 6-10-82. The dacoits looted silver and gold ornaments, cash and other articles from the house. They fired shots by fire arms to cow-down the inmates of the house and neighbours and used blunt weapons to cause injuries to them. Respondents 8, 10 and 11 were charged with receiving and keeping stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. Other respondents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397 I.P.C.. Out of these 11 respondents, respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP191; (1972)IILLJ611MP
Tare, J.1. In this Writ Petition, which is described as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, two questions are mainly involved. So far as Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it will be out of the picture. Sub-clause (4) of Article 227 of the Constitution specifically excludes courts martial from the operation of the Article. It is as follows :--'Article 227(4).-- Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.'Therefore, court-martial can in no sense be considered to be a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. But the said bar does not find place in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, although courts-martial may not be considered to be Tribunals subordinate to the High Court or for the purposes of Article 136 of the Constitution of India subordinate to the Supreme Court, they will be amen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT238
ORDERBhawani Singh, C. J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 62/88. The appellant No. 1 - Mohammed Shafique Pahalwan has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month. He has also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five year and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants No. 2 and 3, namely, Hafiz Pahalwan and Irphan, have been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month each. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1528
Bhawani Singh, C.J1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 62/88. The appellant No. 1-Mohammed Shafique Pahalwan has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. l.000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants No. 2 and 3, namely, Hafiz Pahalwan and Irphan, have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. l.000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month each. The appellant. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP175
T.N. Singh, J. 1. One short, but important question of law has been raised for our decision in this matter. Whether a second appeal lies in respect of an order passed in a proceeding instituted under Section 275, Quanoon Mal (of erstwhile Gwalior State)? That is extracted below. nQk 275 nkok QkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu & vxj nkokQkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu fdlh nLrkost jftLVh 'kqnk dks : ls djuk ykfte vkos rks panrhu lky rglhynkj lkgc ds btykl esa vkB vkus ds LVkEi ij nk;j gksxkA rglhynkj dsgqDe ds vihy lwckr esa gksxk vkSj gqDe lwck lkgkc ukfrd gksxk-2. Obviously, it is not necessary, therefore, to refer to all aspects of the long travail which parties have suffered during the course of long 20 years' life of this lis, but to the undisputed facts relevant to the controversy, a reference is still necessary. Hardeva, prede-cessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was recorded as a Pakka Krishak of land measuring 6 Bighas and 6 Biswas, in village Mohammadpur, Pargana and District Gwalior. He submitted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP63; 1974MPLJ16
Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts that the plaintiff alleged were that on June 12, 1959 she was going in Bus No. MPJ 1690 -- belonging to the Madhva Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, from Jabalour to Chhindwara. A truck bearing No. MPJ 9310 owned by Bakhatwarsingh, defendant No. 2. was Coming from the opposite direction-There was a head-on collision between the two vehicles at a distance of about seven miles from Jabalpur. As a result of this impact, the plaintiff received severe injuries to her right elbow causing multiple fractures. It was further pleaded that the injuries have resulted in a permanent disability of the right hand. Both the drivers, according to the case of the plaintiff, were driving the respective vehicles in utter disregard of the rules of driving and without any regard to the safety of passengers. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rupe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000CriLJ650; 2000(1)MPHT183
R.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-6-1995 in Session Trial No. 123/91 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The appellants are two of the five accused who were tried. Manohar Singh appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and imprisonment for 3 months respectively. Vijaysingh appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has also been sentenced to life imprisonment and imprisonment for 3 months for the respective offences. Three other accused persons; Lakhan Rajoriya, Shobharam Patel and Shiv Kumar were acquitted. All the accused including the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C..2. The incident had occurred on 18-1-1989 at 2 p.m. in village Rimjha. In this incident on the instigation of Vijaysingh appellant, his son Manoharsingh fired a shot at Kailash with a gun whi...
Tag this Judgment!