Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1990)ACC520
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.A.No.33 of 1982 The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Smt. Anupama and Ors.as both these appeals are directed against the same award dated 12th October,81 given by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in claim case No. 3 of 1980.2. M.A.No.25 of 82 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas M.A.NO.33 of 1982 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging their liability for the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals, which are no longer in dispute and as found proved, may be stated, in brief, thus : B us number CPF9187 is owned by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation, of which on the relevant day of the accident, which took place on 24.6.79, Laxman Rao was the driver in the employment of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation. The said bus was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2(1988)ACC237; 1988MPLJ526
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 33 of 1982 The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Anupama and Ors. as both these appeals are directed against the sami award dated 12th October,'81 given by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 3 of 1980.2. M.A. No. 25 of 82 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas M.A. No. 33 of 1982 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging their liability for the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The facts giving rise to these appeals, which are no longer in dispute and as found proved, may be stated, in brief, thus : Bus number CPF 9187 is owned by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation, of which on the relevant day of the accident, which took place on 24 6-1979, Laxman Rao was driver in the employment of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation. The said bus was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990LC120(MP); 1989(40)ELT42(MP)
ORDER1. The petitioner No. 1 in this petition carries on business of stitching HDPE Woven sacks and petitioner No. 2 carries on the business of printing HDPE woven sacks. According to the petitioners, they received from their customers HDPE fabrics for stitching HDPE woven sacks and then do the job of printing on the stitched sacks. The petitioners are paid only for the job work of stitching and printing done by them. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3.4.1986, exempted woven sacks of Polymers of ethylene or propylene or its combination thereof, falling under the heading No. 46.01 or 63.01 of the Schedule from the whole of the duty of Excise specified in the said Schedule. The aforesaid notification was amended by Notification No. 453/86-C.E., dated 20-11-1986 by which a provision was added to the aforesaid notification, whereby the exemption contained in the not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ102
P.C. Pathak, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 566 of 1982 filed by Smt. Meera Devi (plaintiff) and Second Appeal No. 12 of 1983 filed by Nanhe Lal (defendant No. 4) against a common judgment and decree dated 18-10-1982 in Civil Appeal No. 21-A of 1981 of the Court of the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Seoni, arising out of Civil Suit No. 69-A of 1979 of the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Seoni and judgment and decree dated 17-1-1981.2. For convenience, the genealogy of the defendants is reproduced:- Roop Chand (died 1960) | --------------------------------------------- | | | Nanhe Lal Radhe Lal Sahiblal (dead) (Deft. No. 4) | Widow Shivkali Bai | (Deft. No. 3) | ----------------------------------------- | | Kanchan Singh Mohan Singh (Deft. No. 3) (Deft. No. 1) | Wife Maltibai (Deft. No. 5) | Son Santosh Kumar (Deft. No. 6) 3. Roop Chand had three sons, namely, Nanhe Lal, Radhe Lal and Sahib Lal. Sahib Lal predeceased Roop Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990MP171; 1990(0)MPLJ253
V.D. Gyani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (in all 23) have challenged the'Rules' for admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Medical Colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh, as also the rules for allotment of House-jobs, in the Hospitals attached to the Medical Colleges in t-he State.2. It is an. admitted position at these admissions to Post-Graduate Courses are governed by executive instructions issued by the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, although they are titled as Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post-Graduate Courses (Clinical, Para-clinical and Non-Clinical Courses) in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as P.G. Rules). The rules pertaining to Diploma Courses are referred to as 'Diploma Rules'. These rules have been annexed to the petition as Annexures P/1 and P/3. It may also be noted that though titled and called as 'Rules', they are not sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ621
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. This and other connected petitions for bail, raise and involve a common question of law as regards the scope and amplitude of section 37 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended by Amendment Act No. 2 of 1989) for short hereinafter referred to as the. Act.2. Learned counsel on both sides, who include Sarvashri H. S. Oberai, Joshi, and Tiwari for the applicants seeking bail and Shri Khan for the Department of Narcotics and Shri Desai, for the State have forcefully presented their view points. Both agree and rightly so, at this stage, that the factual allegations as made, cannot be disputed; yet Shri Oberai maintained that such procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency, which would ultimately be materially affecting the prosecution case, would be one such circumstance which should be taken into consideration by the Court, while reaching the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1990
ORDERV.D. Gyani, J.1. This and other connected petitions for bail, raise and involve a common question of law as regards the scope and amplitude of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act 1985 (as amended by Amendment Act No. 2 of 1989) for short hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. Learned counsels on both sides, who include Sarvashri H. Section Oberai, Joshi, and Tiwari for the applicants seeking bail and Shri Khan for the Department of Narcotics and Shri Desai, for the State have forcefully presented their view points. Both agree and rightly so, at this stage, that the factual allegations as made, cannot be disputed; yet Shri Oberai maintained that such procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency, which would ultimately be materially affecting the prosecution case, would be one such circumstance, which should be taken into consideration by the Court, while reaching the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1991)ACC193; 1990ACJ862; AIR1990MP306; 1990MPLJ387
T.N. Singh, J.1. Three matters are linked up with the Division Bench, making the reference, taking the view that a common question of law arises in all the three matters and the question being of general importance, deserves decision of a Larger Bench. Claimants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the Act, in this appeal. During pendency of the claim petition an order waspassed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 134 of 1987 on 31-8-1989. By that order claimants' prayer for enforcement of the interim award, passed in the pending claim petition, under Section 92A of the Act, was rejected. Shortly and precisely, challenge to the correctness of the view expressed therein is the basis of the reference made to this Bench.2. Learned District Judge, Shivpuri, acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short, the Tribunal, had passed the order dated 18-8-1986 (which was impug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP180; 1991(0)MPLJ98
K.L. Issrani, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 17-2-1990 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1990 refusing to grant temporary injunction against the recovery of the telephone bills of the appellant.2. In this case, the respondents haveraised a preliminary objection that the application of the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable because the dispute is not covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. For deciding the preliminary objection, it is necessary to mention some facts here. The appellant was nominated as a member of the M. P. Telecom Advisory Committee on 28-6-1985. His term was extended up to 30-6-1989. In his capacity as a member of the M.P.T.A.C., a free telephone No. 28888 was provided to him and was installed at his residence. No rent was to be charged for the said telephone and 1200 local calls bimonthly were allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ362MP; 1992(0)MPLJ214
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Persistant denial for long seven years of her claim for family pension made the desparate widow letter- petition this Court a year ago. Gopal, her husband, died on April 21, 1979. Then began her struggle for survival to feed and rear five minor children, besides nursing one in the womb and keeping her own body and soul together.2. Glimpses of her agonising travail came to be noticed by this Court when her petition dated October 4, 1989 was listed on November 11, 1989. Office was directed to issue notices to respondents 1 and 2 (Secretary, M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter, MPEB or Board), Jabalpur and Divisional Engineer, MPEB, Gwalior respectively) and respondent No. 3, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore. To expedite disposal, the notices were made returnable in four weeks and were directed to be served on Standing Counsel for the respondents - Shri K.N. Gupta and Shri N.P. Mittal, respectively. On January 16, 1990, Shri Gupta filed a joint return of ...
Tag this Judgment!