Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009ACJ477; AIR2008MP213; 2008(1)MPLJ334
Rajendra Menon, J.1. This is claimants appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in claim case No. 138/2002.2. Claimants are the widowed mother and invalid brother of deceased Sajid Khan who was working as driver in truck bearing CII-7814. It is stated that on 28-8-02 when Sajid Khan was working as driver and was checking nut bolts of the wheels after parking the truck by the road side, a bus bearing No. M.P. 04-F-0526 belonging to respondent No. 1, driven by the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 came from the opposite direction, it was driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck, as a result injuries were sustained by Sajid Khan and he died on the spot. Inter alia contending that Sajid Khan was earning Rs. 3000/- as salary per month, was paid daily allowance of Rs. 75/-, appellant No. 1 widowed mother and appellant No. 2 handicapped brother are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC189
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. A challenge has been laid to the order passed by the Under Secretary (Co-operation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 15.9.2001 in appeal No. 27 of 2000.2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that arbitration proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 3 by the petitioner-Bank under Section 72 of the H.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenient sake) for the recovery of Rs. 2,32,022.20 paise stated to have been embezzled by him and interest thereon. The arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,16,836.75 paise on 15.2.1978. It appears that thereafter the petitioner-Bank entered into a settlement with respondent No. 3 on 14.11.1981 and the execution proceedings instituted against him were withdrawn. Consequently, a simple mortgage deed was executed on 30.4.1982 on the basis of which the respondent No. 3 was to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000/- by 22.11.1981 and for the balan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3378
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellants have challenged their conviction Under Section 307 of the IPC and sentence of RI. for three years with tone of Rs. 500/- and one year R.I. Under Section 342 of the IPC, in default of payment fine, additional R.I. for three months, passed by Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 46/97, judgment dated 13-1-1999.2. The prosecution case in brief as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 12-11-1996 in the evening at 6.15 a.m. in village Ohalya/Pipaliya complainant Makhan and his father Tolaram were in the field, at that time the appellants-Raisingh, Vikram and deceased-Nanuram reached over there. Raisingh and Vikram were having sword whereas Nanuram had lathi. They started abusing Tolaram and while saying to kill Tolaram, Raisingh and Vikram by sword and Nanuram by lathi assaulted him. When Makhan reached to save them, he too was assaulted by Vikram and Raisingh by sword. Wife of Tolaram, named Kasturibai was also assaulted by accused persons when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ1783; AIR2008MP47
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act' substantiality and legal acceptability of the Award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonkutch, District Dewas (for short 'the tribunal') in Claim Case No. 99/97 dated 30-9-1997 is called in question by the claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant').2. The facts which are imperative to be' exposited for adjudication of this appeal, in essence, are that Mahant Harnamdasji was proceeding to Allahabad from Indore along with other Sadhus and his Guru Mahant Poorandas on 8-1-1995 in a Jeep bearing registration No. MP-09 H-4768. The first respondent, Lalaram, the driver of the Jeep due to his rash and negligent driving lost control over the vehicle as a consequence of which the same got dashed against a 'Palash' tree. In the accident Harnamdas breathed his last on the spot. One Devchandra sustained injuries and eventually expired on 15-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3733
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of a Lieutenant Colonel of the Indian Army residing in Jankipuram locality of the capital of the State, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved of the encroachment of roads and traffic mismanagement in the cities of the State of U.P. including Lucknow.2. The submission is that on account of inaction on the part of the State during peak hours, congestion takes place in the markets as well as densely-populated areas of the city of Lucknow. The attention of this Court has been drawn to other cities of the State of U.P., particularly the 'A' Class cities with the submission that the State has failed to discharge its constitutional and statutory obligations to provide quality of life i.e. fundamental in nature, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.3. It has been argued by the petitioner's counsel that on account of increase of population in the urban area, it is expecte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008ACJ1127,2007(2)ShimLC409
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of FAO (MVA) No. 274 of 2003 and Cross-objection No. 423 of 2003. H.R.T.C. (for short 'Corporation'), owner of recovery van No. HP-07-3187, is in appeal against the award dated 11.3.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2002 awarding Rs. 4,50,000/- compensation to claimant/petitioner and against the owner and driver of the recovery van jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its deposit. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the impugned award.2. The brief facts of the case are that Hark Bahadur aged 27 years was driving Scooter No. DIF-2286 on 10.11.1999 towards Solan, Jai Chand was pillion rider on the scooter. At place Salogra, the scooter No. DIF2286 was hit by recovery van No. HP-07-3187 owned by Corporation respondent No. 1 and was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR376; 2007(4)BomCR564; (2007)109BOMLR1439; 2007(4)MhLj753
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 20th July, 2002, the learned Joint District Judge, Thane, partly allowed Land Acquisition Reference No. 119 of 1987, enhanced the compensation and directed the authorities to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per hectare with other statutory benefits including solatium. The claimant felt aggrieved from the said judgment has filed the present First Appeal before this Court praying for further enhancement. According to the claimant, the fair market value of the land in question is Rs. 25,000/- per sq.mtr. and the compensation awarded to him at the rate of Rs. 3/per sq.mtr. was entirely inadequate, unfair and unjust.2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was issued by the Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 11th June, 1984, intending to acquire the land in the revenue estate of village Yeoor, Dist. Thane, admeasuring about 10 hectares 39.9 acres in Survey No. 42...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ524HP
1. This petition is filed against the judgment of H. P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1430/1996, dated March 11, 1997.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as Supervisor on daily wages basis with effect from June 1, 1989. The primary duty of the petitioner was to supervise the work of daily wage labourers working in the Forests whether directly employed by the Corporation or by the contractors.3. The petitioner was issued a memo on June 21,1996 along with proforma respondents No. 4 and 5 who were working as daily wages chowkidars on the two timber lots of the Corporation. The gist of the memo dated June 21, 1996 was that due to the absence of the petitioner the timber of road depot had been, stolen on the intervening night of May 15 and 16,1996 causing huge loss to the Corporation. The petitioner by way of this memo was directed to explain his position as to why the loss caused due to the theft should not be, reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)5MLJ831
P.K. Misra, J.1. In W.P. Nos. 24472, 24879, 26146, 26138 of 2004, 16010, 32335 of 2003, 16238, 40166 of 2005 the prayer is for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 432 Public Works (R1) dated 16.9.2003.1.1 W.P. Nos. 35514 and 12321 of 2005 have been filed as Public Interest Litigations for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 432 dated 16.9.2003. The allegations made in both the writ petitions are same as in W.P. No. 35513 of 2005.2. W.P. Nos. 23366 to 23371 of 2001, 10533 & 10534 of 2003, 11160 of 2003, 34514 of 2002, 24182 to 24187 of 2001, 1537 of 2002 have been filed to quash G.O.Ms. No. 438 PW (R1) dated 31.8.2000.3. In W.P. Nos. 20860, 20862, 20864 & 20865 of 2003 prayer is to quash G.O.Ms. No. 221 Public Works (R1) dated 2.6.2003 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette on 10.6.2003 so far as it relates to the petitioners land in Manjambakkam village, Ambattur Taluk in Tiruvallur District.4. W.P. No. 35513 of 2005 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 122 dated 14.7.1998 and to conside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT578
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions, and the connected appeals against interim orders, is to the constitutional validity of:(a) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ('BOCW Act'). (b) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 ('Cess Act'). (c) The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998 ('Central Rules').(d) The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 ('Cess Rules').(e) The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 ('Delhi Rules').2. The challenge to the statutes is by contractors who have entered into construction contracts. They are either in the process of executing the contract or have completed it. The contracts are with various government departments agencies or public sector undertakings (PSUs) for...
Tag this Judgment!