Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ620MP
ORDERShivdayal, J.1. This revision arises from a claim preferred under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act dismissed the claim. The appellate authority reversed that order and directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs. 7,570.62 to the respondent-claimant.2. Kartar Singh, respondent, was a head train examiner, South-eastern Railway, Tatanagar. There he was allotted residential quarters. When he was transferred from Tatanagar to Bilaspur, he was asked to vacate the railway quarters in his occupation at Tatanagar, but he did not vacate them. He was allotted another accommodation at Bilaspur. Even then he did not vacate the Tatanagar quarters. By an order of the District Mechanical Engineer, Bilaspur, dated 9 January 1958 he was placed under suspension and an enquiry was instituted against him.3. It appears that the enquiry took a chequered course. Eventually, by an order dated 15 June 1959 passed by the General Manager, the enquiry was dro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP110; 1967CriLJ545
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is from the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs. 8,600 has been allowed as compensation to the respondent against the three appellants. They have appealed. The claimant has filed cross objections.2. The respondent was going in a rickthaw on the Mahatma Gandhi Road, Raipur, from Manohar Talkies side towards Sharda Chowk. In front of the Mahakoshal Press, the rickshaw was dashed against by a motor truck. No. M.P.R. 2656, belonging to the Lucky Bharat Garage, (appellant No. 2). Baldeoraj (appellant 3) was driving the truck. The respondent's case was that the truck was being driven at a very great speed. As a result of the above accident, he received serious personal injuries. He was admitted to the D. K. Hospital, Raipur, for treatment. His monthly income was about Rs. 260. He claimed Rs. 750 for the medical expenses incurred; Rs. 10,000 as general dama...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP239
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from a claim for compensation, which was made under Section 110 of that Act. The appellant, a yong girl of 15 years, a student of the 1st Year Science class in the S. B. R. College, Bilaspur, riding a lady bicycle, while returning from the College to her house, was struck from behind by a truck No. M.P.L. 718. She fell down with her bicycle. She was extricated from under the truck where she was lying between the front and the rear wheels. She was removed to the hospital. She sustained a fracture of the spine. She had to remain in the hospital for 3 months. She claimed Rs. 8,400 as general damages and Rs. 1,600 as special damages.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), passed a decree in favour of the applicant for Rs. 1,250, that is Rs. 500 as special damages and Rs. 750 as general damages against the third respondent, the Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. The claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1966CriLJ1087
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is a very strange case of an arbitrary and illegal conviction under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Railway Magistrate, Ratlam. The record of the case was called by this Court when the matter was brought to my knowledge by the District Magistrate, Ujjan, and Shri Pranlal Thakkar, who has been found guilty under Section 228, Indian Penal Code. Shri Pranlal Thakkar also filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Ujjain. The record of the revision petition has also been -called up here.2. The facts as revealed by the orders passed by the Railway Magistrate and the evidence on record are that the Special Railway Magistrate, Ratlam, is required to go to Ujjain from time to time for trial and disposal of cases under the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Shri M.L. Sharma, the Railway Magistrate, arrived at Ujjain on 29th October 1965 and was staying in Retiring Room No. 2 at Ujjain Railway Station. It appears that the Railway Magistrate desi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP44; [1966(12)FLR429]; (1966)ILLJ356MP
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners, who carry on the business of manufacturing bidis at Burhanpur, pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Indore, on 2nd May 1964 deciding some of the objections raised by the petitioners in an 'industrial dispute' referred to the Tribunal for adjudication by the Government by an order dated 20th July 1963 made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. 2. The order which the Government passed on 20th July 1963 under Section 10(1) of the Act is in the following terms: 'No. /5588/XVI, whereas the State Government is of opinion that an Industrial Dispute exists between the Rashtriya Bidi Mazdoor Sangh, Burhanpur and the BIdi Manufacturers Association, Burhanpur regarding; leave with wages etc. a,s specified in the schedule hereto annexed. And whereas the State Government consider it desirable to refer the said dispute fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1966)ILLJ622MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This application under Atricles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is by an employee of the Burn & Co., Ltd., Niwar, district Jabalpur, (hereinafter called the company), of which the respondent is the works manager. The applicant is also the general secretary of the Burn & Co. Mazdoor Sangh. He seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the determination of the labour court, Jabalpur, and of the industrial court, Madhya Pradesh, that the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), applies to Burn & Co. Ltd., Niwar, district Jabalpur, an undertaking styled as 'refractory and ceramic works' and engaged in the manufacture of fire-bricks, and, therefore, the labour court has jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by the works manager under Sections 61(1)(A) and (C) and 80 of the Act for a declaration that the employees of the company had gone on an illegal strike from 1 March 1965. The petitioner also prays that a direction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP197
Bhave, J. 1. This petition is directed against the award, dated 6th October 1964, made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, in Revenue Case No. 17-A of 1965. It is urged that the said award was given without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of her claim and is thus vitiated.2. The circumstances in which the award was pronounced may he briefly stated. Certain land in mouza Kasaridih in the town of Durg was to be acquired for the purposes of the Bhilai Sled Project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued and pursuant thereto an award, dated 6th July 1961, was also given by the Land Acquisition Officer. After the award was given, the Land Acquisition Officer, however, came to the conclusion that the notification under Section 0 was defective and, therefore, requested the State Government to issue a fresh notification under Section 6. After the fresh notification was issued and was published, notices under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP235
Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of a tax levied on persons carrying on, within the Pandhurna Municipal limits, the trade of ginning and pressing cotton under a notification issued by the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar on 23rd January 1938, and seeks a direction for restraining the Municipal Council, Pandhurna, from collecting the tax from him.2. The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of Kekatpure Ginning and Pressing Factory, situated within the municipal limits of the respondent Municipal Council, contends that the tax is ultra vires because of the operation of Section 142A of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 276 of the Constitution; and that the tax is a tax on profession, trade or calling as contemplated by the aforesaid provisions and cannot exceed the maxima laid down in those provisions.3. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP215; [1966]18STC251(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 544, 371, 372 373 and 374 of 1963, Nos. 450, 453, 571 and 616 of 1964, and Nos. 12, 13, 14. 15. 60, 74, 111, 284, 285 and 306 of 1965.2. The common question raised in these twenty applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is as regards the levy of sales-tax under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, on four petitioner-companies, namely, the Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd., Calcutta, the Pench Valley Coal Company Ltd., Calcutta, the Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Calcutta, the Jhagrakhand Collieries Private Ltd., Calcutta, on the price of coal supplied to allottees outside the State of Madhya Pradesh pursuant to directions issued by the Coal Controller under the Colliery Control Order, 1945, (hereinafter referred to as the Order), during certain periods of assessment falling within the years from 1st January 1953 to 31st March 1961.3. Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP138
Bhave, J. 1. Jainarain (respondent No. 3) held a stage carriage permit on the route Indore to Alot via Ujjain Originally the permit was granted in the year 1956 and was renewed in 1961. He again, applied for renewal. The petitioner. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, applied for grant of a permit on the said route in lieu of renewal The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, by order, dated 23rd November 1964, rejected the application for renewal and granted the permit to the petitioner in the vacancy caused. On appeal, the State Transport Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted renewal to the respondent No. 3 by order, dated 29th May 1965. The present petition is directed against the appellate order.2. The petitioner challenges the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority on the following grounds:(1) That the respondent No. 3 owns only three buses and has no properly equipped workshop. (2) That the respondent's reco...
Tag this Judgment!