Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-04-1996
Reported in : 1997ACJ173; AIR1997MP5; 1996(0)MPLJ668
1. The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge on a revision preferred by the appellant. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri. The learned Tribunal had allowed him compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,033/- and theclaimant had filed execution for recovery of the amount. Against the award, the Insurance Company had preferred an appeal after depositing 50% of the awarded amount which was withdrawn by the claimant/appellant.2. The learned single Judge in the Misc. Appeal of the Insurance Company held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to pay only Rs. 6,000/-. After the decision of the Misc. Appeal of the Insurance Company, an application was filed by the Company in the execution proceedings that its liability to pay having been determined by the High Court only up to the extent of Rs. 6,000/-, it was entitled to the refund of balance amount withdrawn by the clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-16-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ244
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. In all these writ petitions a common question of law is involved and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, facts in W.P. No. 4181 of 1995, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited, Bhopal are taken into consideration.2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 4181 of 1995 has prayed that Rule 27 of the M. P. Mining Corporation Service (Conduct) Rules, 1993 may be declared as ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and likewise the order passed on 29-11-1995 (Annexure P4) may be quashed.3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was a Deputy General Manager (Mines) of the M. P. State Mining Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') in the pay scale of Nos. 3700-5000/-. The petitioner was appointed as Mining Engineer in the services of the Corporation by order dated 3-3-1979 after due selection. The petitioner joined...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-26-1996
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ1301MP
S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 3, 1988 in Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1988 under the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on the ground that the appeal filed against the Award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner did not raise any substantial question of law. Similar appeals have been filed, in some cases against common award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, against the decision of learned Single Judge declining to entertain appeal against the award on the ground that the appellant did not raise any substantial question of law as required by the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These appeals are : (1) LPA No. 22/88-WCL Barkui v. Fandi and Ors. (2) LPA No. 23/88-WCL Chandametta v. Sheikh Asgar (3) LPA No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-13-1996
Reported in : AIR1997MP74
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 29-11-1995, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in M.C.C. No. 382/95'(State of M.P. and two others v. G.L. Patel), arising out of order dated 16-2-1995, passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 1037/94. The State has also challenged in this appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 1037/94, decided on 16-2-1995. It has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal under Section 5 of Limitation Act against the order dated 16-2-1995 in M.P. No. 1037/94.2-3. The State has also filed L.P.A. No. 206/95 against the order, passed by a learned single Judge in M.C.C. No. 383/95 which arose from the order, dated 16/2/1995, passed in M.P. No. 1158/94. In this appeal also an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order 16-2-1995 in M.P. No. 1158/94 has been filed bythe State.3. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-15-1996
Reported in : [1997]224ITR107(MP)
1. This is a reference application under Section 256 at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in denying the assessee exemption under Section 54 in regard to surplus realised on the sale of residential property at Jabalpur and invested with the Delhi Development Authority for the acquisition of a flat ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is an individual and owned a property in Jabalpur. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee sold this property on December 29, 1981, and realised capital gains of Rs. 31,980. She invested a sum of Rs. 71,256 for the purchase of a flat in Delhi from the Delhi Development Authority. The sum represented the first instalment. Before the Income-tax Officer, exemption under Section 54 was claimed by the assessee in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-12-1996
Reported in : AIR1997MP49
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. By a plurality of less than 123 votes, (123 votes to be exact as reduced from initial margin of 146 votes) on recount of votes in terms of Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'), respondent No. 1 (Surendra Verma), a candidate sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party was declared elected on 1st December, 1993 from Sonkatcha Constituency No. 277 of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the general election held on 27th November, 1993 defeating his main rival, the petitioner, a candidate put up by Indian National Congress. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6, ex parte here, were also in the field and polled poorly. The petitioner has filed this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') calling in question the election of the respondent No. 1 on the grounds specified in Sections 100 and 101 of the Act to obtain triple reliefs as noted below :--(a) To declare the election of respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-1996
Reported in : AIR1997MP19
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. Undaunted by unsuccess in the Execution Court, the revisionist revigorates her claim, in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil,Procedure (for short 'the Code'), of immunity from eviction in execution of the decree of Competent Court, procured under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), on the linchpin of deposit of all dues, as declared and decreed, in the Executing Court under the umbrella, deeming it protective in terms of Sectionsl3(I)(5)(6) and 12(3) of the Act, of the decisions of single Bench of this Court reported in 1988 Jab LJ 213 : 1987 MPRCJ 23 (Lachhobai Rathore v. Registered Shri Murti God Madan Mohan Maharaj) 1990 Jab LJ 434, (Phoolchand Jain v. Chhotelal) and 1994 Jab LJ 174 (Bhagwantdas Pawaiya v. Regd. Firm Kailash Narain and Bros.) and refuses to be dissented from the decretal accommodation. 2. Brief narrative of fasciculus of facts is that the non-applicant obtained the decree against Kanhai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-04-1996
Reported in : AIR1996MP247
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter the CPC for short) filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-86, passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ho-shangabad in Civil Appeal No. 53-A/81 arising out of judgment and decree dated 1-5-81, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sohagpur in Civil Suit No. 40-A/80.2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering with his possession of the land. It was also claimed that the order passed by the competent authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sohagpur in Revenue Case No. 735/ A/90 B(3) 74-75 Under Section 11 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act for short) be declared void. The appellant claimed that he was holding Khasra No. of 80,8.87 acres of land situate in village Dhadhiyakishore, Tahsil Sohagpur, District H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-07-1996
Reported in : (1996)134CTR(MP)100
A. R. TIWARI, J. :The aforesaid Misc. Civil Cases, presented by the CIT, Bhopal under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) contain the common question, as extracted below, and categorised by the applicant as one of law, for direction to the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the same for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amended provisions of s. 43B were applicable to asst. yr. 1984-85 when the said amendment was effective from 1st April, 1988 ?'2. Misc. Civil Case No. 683 of 1992 was not listed for today. Other Misc. Civil Cases were listed for today. However, on request of the counsel for the applicant this Misc. Civil Case, entailing identical question is also taken up for consideration along with the other Misc. Civil Cases.3. The aforesaid question of law is sought to be supplemented and supported by the undernoted three common grounds contained in these applications :'(i)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-24-1996
Reported in : 1998ACJ1255
S.K. Dubey, J.1. The claimants aggrieved of dismissal of their application for compensation have filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award dated 3.9.1988 passed in Claim Case No. 10 of 1987 by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are these. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents; appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the sisters and appellant No. 5 is the brother of the deceased Devendra Kumar Ratle who died in a motor accident on 3.6.1984 while returning from Bhopal in the official vehicle jeep MPZ 6536 owned by respondent State of Madhya Pradesh. The deceased was posted as Assistant Engineer (S.D.O.) in Irrigation Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh at Nasrullahganj at Kolar Project. After obtaining the due permission from J.P. Jain, AW 1, the then Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department, for going to Bhopal for approval and taking of estimate of Irrigation Project, the dec...
Tag this Judgment!