Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1996 Page 2 of about 33 results (0.051 seconds)

Jun 26 1996 (HC)

Punjab National Bank Vs. Baba Kishandas Thakur Das

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-26-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ208

..... , there the law will in general excuse him; and though impossibility of performance is in general no excuse for not performing an obligation which a party has expressly undertaken by contract, yet when the' obligation is one implied by law impossibility of performance is a good excuse.'11. sitting singly, it is necessary for me to notice and consider the two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1996 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nolan Bai and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-14-1996

Reported in : I(1997)ACC376; 1998ACJ681

..... act reads thus:95(2) (b). where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment,- xxx xxx xxx(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger....(9) as the law stands today the insurer is liable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1996 (HC)

Ramdulari Agarwal Vs. Municipal Corporation

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-30-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ63

orders.s. jha, j.1. this revision has been filed against the order of the 5th additional judge to the court of district judge, raipur, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.2. the facts of the case are as under :-that the applicant has applied for sanction of map for construction to the commissioner, municipal corporation, raipur. according to the applicant, his application for sanction was rejected on 5-2-1990. he acquired knowledge of the order on 20-3-1990. he applied for copy on 21-3-1990 which was received by him on 6-9-1990. after receiving the certified copy he filed the appeal under section 293(3) of the m. p. municipal corporation act, on 21-9-1990 an affidavit before the appellate court was also filed stating that the information about the order dated 5-2-1990 was acquired on 20-3-1990. the lower appellate court held that the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the passing of the order. since the appeal has not been filed within time it has been dismissed as barred by limitation. section 293 para 3 provides : 'any person aggrieved by the order of the commissioner in this behalf may appeal to the district court within thirty days of such order in the manner prescribed therefor and the decision of the district court shall be final.' 3. the only question which is to be decided in this case is whether the appeal can be filed from the date of the order or from the date of the knowledge.4. that there is another provision for filing an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1996 (HC)

Gangadhar Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-15-1996

Reported in : II(1997)DMC301

r.d. shukla, j.1. appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.1991 of the sessions judge rajgarh (biaora) passed in s.t. no. 152/89 whereby accused-appellant has been convicted under section 302 of ipc for having committed murder of his wife dhapubai, aged 22 years, by setting her to fire on the evening of 3.8.1989 in village sunderpura, p.s. malwar and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. this is not in dispute that deceased dhapubai was the wife of accused. both were living together. dhapubai was found with burn injuries inside the house.3. prosecution story in brief is that accused used to assault and torture his wife. about 4-5 days prior to the date of incident dhapubai failed to bring meals for the accused in fields as such she was taken in jungle by the accused where she was assaulted and tortured. she was kept without food.accused came back alongwith his wife. after keeping her in jungle for about 3-4 days. harisingh (pw. 4) and bharatsingh met her on the way. she made a complaint to them about the beatings and torture done by accused. accused got annoyed. he brought his wife dhapubai inside house.accused tied dhapubai by rope, poured kerosene oil. and set her to fire. dhapubai raised alarm. smoke also came out of the house. kasturibai (pw3)came to know about the fire inside the house. she also raised alarm. persons assembled there. they found dhapubai with burn injuries. she disclosed that her husband had set her to fire.4. mangilal, head constable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1996 (HC)

Harvilas Shivhare Vs. Jahoor Khan

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-17-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ23

ordert.s. doabia, j.1. this petition has been preferred under section 23-e of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the rent controlling authority (hereinafter referred to as rca) has come to the conclusion that the need of the respondent-landlord is bona fide. an order of eviction has been passed. this order is subject matter of this petition.the brief facts for the purposes of this petition be noticed as under :1. the respondent jahoor khan is said to be a retired government servant. he is said to have retired on 30th of september, 1977. he sought eviction of the petitioner under chapter iii-a of the act. he pleaded that after retirement he sought employment with a co-operative society as salesman. he had been getting a monthly salary of rs. 2,000/-. according to him, he is unable to sustain himself and wants to start his own business. he wants to set up a flour mill in the premises in dispute.2. leave to defend was granted. the petitioner took a plea that the petition had not been preferred bona fide. according to him, this petition was filed with an oblique motive. the motive is said to be to seek enhancement of the rent. it is sought to be contended that rent was enhanced from time to time. the first enhancement is said to have been made in the year 1979. the second enhancement is said to have been made in the year 1984 and the third enhancement is made in the year 1993. it was pleaded that the landlord wanted the rent .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1996 (HC)

Vinayak Rao Jadhav and ors. Vs. Shweta Vinayak Rao Jadhav

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-17-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ27

ordert.s. doabia, j.1. what would be the 'ordinary residence' of a three year old child-a male child in this case? can a minor of this tender age exhibit his 'intention' to reside at a particular place or express a desire as to where he would like to reside. one way to look at this question would be to link his residence with the natural guardian. the minor in this case is not residing with father but with parents of the father. mother has custody of a female child, she is seeking custody of her minor son. a petition has been preferred under section 7 of the guardians and wards act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the act). an objection has been taken to the maintainability of the petition. it is pleaded that courts at gwalior have no jurisdiction and the petition should be filed at delhi where the minor is said to be staying with his grand parents. the trial court found no merit in the objection so taken by the father and grand parents of the minor. dissatisfied with the same, they have preferred this petition.2. some other facts which are relevant for the purposes of this petition be also noticed.3. the respondent mother is having custody of a female child of two years. she has also taken proceeding against her husband under sections 498a and 506b of the indian penal code. the father is residing at dewas in the state of madhya pradesh. the grand parents as noticed above, are residing at new delhi. to repeat minor is said to be at present with petitioner 2 and 3, that is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1996 (HC)

Satyapal Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-31-1996

Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ459

a.r. tiwari, j.1. acting pro-bono publico, the petitioner has filed this petition on 1-5-1990 under article 226 of the constitution of india for the under noted reliefs. -(a) the respondent no. 1 may be directed to exercise the power under article 370(3) and declare that article 370 has ceased to be operative immediately w/o loss of any further time, as it has already outlived its just life,(b) the respondents nos. 1 and 2 may be directed to take immediate steps to provide the migrants from the valley good living conditions i.e. accommodation, food and all other facilities as are provided to a state guest to un keep their dignity and to take care of interest of students in particular and other children of theirs,(c) such other relief as deemed fit and cost of the petition is kindly allowed. x x x-2. the petition is supported by the petitioner's own affidavit dated 2-5-1990 which states that contents are 'true to my own knowledge and belief' and affidavit dated 2-5-1990 of one shri moolchand jain. detailed affidavit, running into 119 pages, is filed by the petitioner on 29-7-1992 in support of the petition and prayer for ad interim writ.3. the deputy secretary to government, general administrative department (gad), jammu and kashmir, jammu has filed the affidavit in opposition. the petitioner filed the rejoinder on 18-7-1995. respondent no. 1 filed the reply with affidavit. respondent no. 1 also filed the counter-affidavit, dated 4-6-1993. respondent no. 2 also filed detailed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1996 (HC)

Manju Kohli Vs. Desh Deepak Kohli

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-17-1996

Reported in : I(1998)DMC724

d.m. dharmadhikari, j.1. in matrimonial proceedings between the parties for seeking divorce by the wife under section 13 of the hindu marriage act which was filed on 14.7.1995, on 9.2.1996aan application was filed under joint signatures of the spouses through their counsel for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under section 13b of the hindu marriage act, 1955. the spouses sought a decree of divorce under section 13b of the act on the date of presentation of the petition. the matrimonial court by order dated 12.2.1990, however, held that the decree sought of divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed before expiry of six months period from me date of joint filing of the petition. the court held that the provision of sub-section (2) of the section 13b of the act require the court to direct the parties to wait for six months after filing of the petition based on mutual consent.2. the learned counsel appearing for the wife raised two contentions. firstly it is contended that the period of six months can be reckoned by the court from 14.7.1995 when the divorce petition was filed under section 13 of the act and not from 9.2.1996 when a joint petition under signatures of the spouses were filed for decree based on mutual consent under section 13b of the act. it is submitted that there were facts brought on record to show that the parties were lying separately for a period of more than one year and their reunion was impossible for the reasons mentioned in the main petition as also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1996 (HC)

Sukhdevibai Wd/O Ramnarayan (Since Deceased Through L.Rs.) Vs. Haricha ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-26-1996

Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ475

a.r. tiwari, j.1. the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment delivered by 1st addl. judge to the court of district judge, indore on 26-08-1972 on reference made to it under section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short the act') registered as mjc no. 13/70.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the lands bearing survey nos. 49, 57, 59, 60/1, 60/2, 61 and 62 situated at village chitawad were acquired under the provisions of the act on 27-05-1966. the main dispute as regards apportionment of the amount of compensation existed between the appellant and respondent no. 1. the matter was, therefore, referred for decision of the court under section 30 of the act. the claimants led evidence. the trial court, on evaluation of the evidence, held that respondent no. 1 was entitled to share the amount of compensation proportionate to his land admeasuring 8.14 acres (survey nos. 60/2, 61 and 62) and the appellant was entitled to receive the amount of compensation concerning the remaining survey nos. i.e. 49, 57, 59 and 60/1 i.e. 6.12 acres. the total land acquired was 14.26 acres. this judgment is challenged in this appeal by smt. sukhdevibai. she expired on 25-04-1982 and her legal representatives have been brought on record.3. we have heard shri v. s. samvatsar, learned counsel for the appellants and shri s. d. sanghi, learned senior counsel with shri n. k. sanghi for the respondent no. 1. we also heard shri piyush mathur, learned dy. govt. advocate for respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1996 (HC)

Yashwant Singh Chauhan and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-18-1996

Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ659

ordert.s. doabia, j.1. in this public interest litigation challenge is being made to the entire process of examination held by the state of madhya pradesh for the promotional posts of naib-tahsildar. it is not in dispute that this process is governed by the rules known as kanishtha prashaskiya bharati niyam, 1980. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under rule 7 of the rules of 1980 60% of the posts are to be filled by the public service commission and 40% are to be filled through departmental candidates. it is vis-a-vis these departmental candidates a grievance has been made. it is stated that 20% of the posts are to be filled out of revenue inspectors; 10% posts are to be filled out of the clerical staff of the collector's office and the commissioners' office through departmental examination and 10% of the posts are to be filled out of the revenue inspectors and patwaris. this again is through the departmental examination. in para 4 of the petition it has been specifically stated that the present dispute relates to the posts to be filled up through the departmental examination from revenue inspectors and patwaris. it is stated that numerous irregularities have been committed in the matter of conducting this examination. it is stated that the result was declared by the respondent no. 2 on 13-8-1996. 568 incumbents were declared successful. it is further stated that some retotalling is being resorted to and in the garb of this retotalling about 67 persons have .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //