Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1999 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.101 seconds)

Feb 18 1999 (HC)

Mani JaIn Vs. Sub-divisional Forest Officer-cum-authorised Officer and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-18-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)MPLJ81

..... made by any person either to the high court or to the sessions judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.'the rationale behind it to prevent multiplicity of revision petitions in criminal matters. but the present controversy does not fall under the criminal procedure code and would not invite the bar of second revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1999 (HC)

Smt. Mani JaIn Vs. Sub-div. Forest Officer and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-18-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ1800

..... by any person either to the high court or to the sessions judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by one or other of them. the rationale behind it to prevent multiplicity of revision petitions in criminal matters. but the present controversy does not fall under the cr. p.c. and would not invite the bar of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1999 (HC)

Samta Construction Co. Vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director of Inco ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Reported in : [2000]244ITR845(MP)

dipak misra, j. 1. the justifiability of the action of the deputy director of income-tax (investigation) and the commissioner of income-tax, respondents nos. 1 and 2, respectively, herein, requisitioning the bank draft of the petitioner in exercise of power under section 132a of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), on december 14, 1996, is called in question in the present writ petition preferred under article 226 of the constitution of india by the petitioner, a partnership firm.2. the essential facts which require narration for the present litigation are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of executing various kinds of work, and contract operation of quarrying of sand on lease basis from the government of madhya pradesh. as set forth in the petition, the partnership-firm submitted earnest money of rs. 72,60,000 (seventy two lakhs sixty thousand only) in a joint venture along with others with themadhya pradesh matsya vikas nigam limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the nigam') in connection with a bid for fishing rights for sagar gandhi dam. it is stated that due to paucity of time the petitioner could not channelise funds through its bank for which he had to obtain loans from various persons. loans were advanced by them by way of bank drafts drawn in favour of the 'nigam'. initially, the tender was awarded in favour of the petitioner it being the highest bidder but afterwards the same was withdrawn by the department of fisheries .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1999 (HC)

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

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-22-1999

Reported in : 2001ACJ766

d.m. dharmadhikari, j.1. this appeal has been placed before me for decision as conflicting opinions have been expressed by learned s.k. dubey, j. and s.p. khare, j. as members constituting the division bench.2. this appeal has been preferred by the insurance company under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1988' for short). the fifth motor accidents claims tribunal, bilaspur, by award made on 13.12.1995 has granted compensation in the sum of rs. 1,22,000 with 12 per cent interest from the date of claim to the claimants for the death of deceased loharmal in motor accident on 6.4.1991.3. the facts not in dispute are that the vehicle involved in the accident with registration no. 23/b 4809 was mini truck of the make swaraj mazda. it was a transport vehicle adapted for use of carriage of goods and was registered as a 'light motor vehicle' and was a 'transport vehicle' as defined under section 2(21) and 2(47) respectively under the act of 1988. the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. as per the terms of the insurance policy, exh. p/3, there was a compulsory insurance for public risk for which separate premium was charged. apart from the public risk, it was insured for risk of one driver and two other persons on the vehicle as cleaner or coolies. separate premium was charged for the above mentioned number of authorised occupants of the vehicle.4. on the version of the accident, the owner of the vehicle and one .....

Tag this Judgment!


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