Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996ACJ683
R.D. Shukla, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 9.7.1990 passed by M.A.C.T., Dhar, in Claim Case No. 8 of 1987 whereby the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same for the death of Sitaram who was the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and died in a motor accident on 11.1.1987 near village Thapla of District Dhar. The appellant and the respondent No. 9 have been jointly and severally held responsible for payment of compensation.This appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the quantum of compensation and is further questioning the liability imposed on it.2. The brief history of the case is that deceased Sitaram was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of cattle including goat, she-goat, buffalo and she-buffalo. On the date of incident, he had hired the motor Matador (m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT139
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2005 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 40-A/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-4-2004 passed by IX Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 62- A/2002.2. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 8-9-2005 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment against the defendants is not maintainable in view of the fact that partnership firm to whom accommodation was let is not joined as party?(2) Whether the Courts below have erred in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, when plaintiff has failed to prove his need to the suit accommodation objectively?(3) Whether the findings of the Courts below about the bonafide need of the plaintiff is vitiated for non-consideration of the facts, i.e., age of the plaintiff, his past exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR736]
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2006, passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Indore, in Case No. 46/99, W.C.N.F., whereby on account of injuries sustained by the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,14,367/-, has been awarded along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the dale of accident, the present appeal, has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that appellant sustained injuries on 10.7.1998, during the course of his employment. Claim petition filed by the appellant was contested by respondent No. 2 and was allowed along with interest from the dale of accident. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the interest has been awarded @ 6% p.a., while the interest ought to have been awarded @ 12% p.a., as per Section 4-A of Workmen's Compensation Act, which has been amended w.e.f. 15.9.1995 by Amendment Act, No. 30/1995.3. Mr. S.S. Chawla, learned 'Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2004]134TAXMAN303(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which has been brought into the existence by Income- tax (Twenty-second Amendment) Rules, 2001 is ultra vires, invalid and inoperative as it runs counter to the provisions contained in section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as a consequence of which it travels beyond the rule making power as envisaged under section 295(2) of the Act and further the said rule being discriminatory is defiant of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Quite apart from the above various other prayers have been putforth. It is also relevant to state here that in certain writ petitions apart from the aforesaid prayer other reliefs have also been sought. As the basic question was common to all the writ petitions they were heard analogously. For the sake of clarity and convenience we are i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ526
A.K. Gohil, J.1. Claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 25-6-2003 passed by First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar, in claim Case No. 22/2003, where by the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. In this case the incident took place on 7-3-1993 and in that accident deceased Pistabai died. Deceased Pistabai was the daughter of the appellants. Thereafter on 15-11-2002 claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter that the claim petition has been filed after lapse of 9 years and 8 months and dismissed the claim petition placing reliance on a Division Bench decision in the case of Vinod v. Manoj and Anr. 2002 (II) Durghatna Muavja Prakashika 463 and also considering the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya : AIR1996S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ493
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the appellants-claimants who are father, mother, wife, sons and daughter of deceased Raj Narayan Vishwakarma, challenging the award dated 29.3.2000 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 39 of 1993.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.6.1993 Raj Narayan Vishwakarma, driver of the mini truck bearing registration No. MP 04-D 0072 owned by Surendra Singh Rathore, the respondent No. 4 and insured by the respondent No. 5 had loaded a consignment of liquor from K.C.T. Drinks Pvt. Ltd. at Bhopal and left for Gwalior for delivering the same at Gwalior (along with Gopal Giri, employee of liquor company). On 9.6.1993 at about 11 a.m. when the said mini truck was 15 km away from Gwalior near brick kiln situated at Neemuch Dhaba on A.B. Road, at that time the truck driver Raj Narayan Vishwakarma was driving the truck very slowly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1955CriLJ157
ORDERSathaye J.C.(1) This is a reference Under Section 432(1), Cr.PC from the Subordinate Judge-Magistrate, 1st class, Bhopal. The question referred is: 'Whether the Bhopal Cattle Slaughter (Restrictions) Ordinance, 1949, is 'intra vires' of the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal?'(2) The question arose in a trial of four persons, the non-applicants, for an offence Under Section 10 of the Ordinance. The learned Magistrate is of the view that it is not 'intra vires' of the Chief Commissioner inasmuch as there is nothing in the Ordinance to indicate (a) that it was necessitated by any emergency, and (b) that it was made and promulgated for the peace and good Government of the Bhopal State or part thereof, as required Under Section 12, Bhopal Legislative Council Act, 1922, as amended by such Act (No. I of 1940), under which it was made and promulgated by the Chief Commissioner.(3) The Bhopal Cattle Slaughter (Restrictions) Ordinance, 1949, was promulgated by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal, on 13-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ469MP; 1986MPLJ152
J.S. Verma, Actg., C.J.1. Petitioner Straw Products Limited is a Public Company having its registered office at Jaykaypur, Rayagada, District Koraput (Orissa) and has one of its Division Board Mills with its office and factory at Bhopal. The Company made an application dated 8th November 1985 (Annex. A) to the Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 25O and/or Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for permission to close machine No. 2 in the Board Mills at Bhopal resulting in retrenchment of its workmen employed in machine No. 2. The State Government by its order dated 3rd January 1986 (Annex. G) refused permission under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act to close machine No. 2 for the reasons stated therein and by its order dated 4th January 1986 (Annex.J) refused the permission for retrenchment of the workmen employed in machine No. 2 under Section 25N for the same reasons. Aggrieved by this decision of the State Government, this petition has been filed for qua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1988CriLJ597
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this Order, M.P. No. 2292 of 1987 A. K. Handa and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. is also disposed of.2. The petitioner is a commissioned officer in Indian Army, having been appointed on 9-2-1964 and he is at present holding substantive rank of Major. He was officiating as Lt. Colonel since 1-4-1984 and was posted as Commanding Officer, Depot Regiment (Corps of Signals) since 8-5-1984. For the year 1984-85, the GOC, MP B & O Area, headquarter Jabalpur, wrote an adverse confidential report dt. 16th May 1985 that while the petitioner's professional competence was very satisfactory and he appears to have had much potential, he would not vouchsafe for the officer's moral qualities, gets into shady financial deals with the money of his subordinates, and his integrity is questionable. Not likely to command respect. In view of this adverse confidential, he was reverted to his substantive rank of Major. The GOC also ordered Genral Court Martial (GCM) against him. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990MP331; 1990MPLJ382
ORDERP.C. Pathak, J. 1. The order in this appeal shall also govern disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1989 (Nandkishore Mohanlal v. Bissesarlal Gupta & Co. and 4 Ors.) Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1989 ( Nand Kishore Mohanlal v. Murlidhar Brijlal and 2 Ors.).2. The appellant/plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. In a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,965-70 against the respondents, since the firm was unable to pay requisite court-fee of Rs. 5405/-, it applied under Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to sue as an indigent person, which was registered as M. J. C. No. 2 of 1977.3. In Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1989, the suit filed by the same plaintiff for recovery of certain amount against another set of defendant was registered as M.J.C. No. 10 of 1978. Yet in another suit for recovery of money against the respondents in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1989 the ame plaintiff sought permission to sue as an indigent ...
Tag this Judgment!