Madhya Pradesh Court April 1965 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harischandra Pathak Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ93MP
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against an order dated 27 February 1963 whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, dismissed the petitioner from service.2. The material facts of the case are these. In the year 1956, the petitioner was recruited as co-operative and panchayat inspector. Subsequently, he was required to work as a co-operative extension officer. At the material time, he was employed on that post in the Amarwnra Block of Ctihindwara district. By an order dated 17 February 1961, the Collector of Chhindwara suspended the petitioner and directed that a departmental enquiry be held against him. In due course, the chargesheet enumerating six charges (Annexure C) and the statement of allegations (Annexure D) were served on the petitioner and the enquiry was held by Sri S.H. Naidu, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhindwara, who was appointed by the Collector to be the enquiry...
Sou. Ramabai W/O Ambadas Vs. Meerabai D/O Narayan Rao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP86
Bhargava, J. 1. The defendant, Smt Ramabai, against whom the plaintiff-respondent Mirabai obtained a decree for payment of monthly amount of maintenance at Rs. 60 from the date of institution of her suit and for payment of Rs. 3,000 on account of her marriage expenses, from the Court of the Additional District Judge. Chhindwara, in Civil Suit No. 44-A of 1958, has filed this appeal. 2. The facts are these. Admittedly, Narayan Rao Dandige owned the properties mentioned in his Schedules attached to the plaint. By his first wife, he had a daughter who is the appellant Smt. Ramabai. and a son Nilkanth. By his another wife. Smt Gangubai. he had a daughter who is the respondent in this appeal. Narayan Rao died on 13-6-1942 at Nagpur. Nilkanth being his only son inherited the entire property of his father. He was minor at the time of his father's death. Therefore, the property was managed by his stepmother Smt. Gangubai on his behalf. Smt. Gangubai remarried in the month of August 1948. Befor...
Harris Mineral Supply Co. and ors. Vs. Salim M. Merchant and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966MP60; 1965MPLJ534
ORDER1. The petitioners in this case seek a writ of certiorari for quashing a part of an award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, on 18th June 1964 in a dispute referred to it by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinr after referred to as the Act).2. The petitioners are owners of ochre mines situated in Jaitwara area of district Satna. The employees of the mines presented as many as thirty-two demands against the petitioners and raised an industrial dispute. When the dispute could not be settled in conciliation proceedings, the Central Government, by an order made on 15th June 1962 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act referred to the Industrial Tribunal Bombay, for adjudication ten matters arising out of the dispute and specified in a schedule annexed to the order. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award on those matters on 18th June 1964. The petitioners question the award in respect of the following...
Sadhuram and ors. Vs. State Through Food Inspector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967MP122; 1967CriLJ549
ORDERH.R. Krishnan, J. 1. The appellants in this case are three partners (or a paid manager and two partners proper) of a factory manufacturing linseed oil. A sample of the oil was taken and it being round to be below standard there was a prosecution in which each of the three partners was convicted under Sections 7 and 16(1) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each with imprisonment in default. An appeal being dismissed, ail the three came up in revision. But the application was admitted for hearing only on the ground, namely, whether the partners other than Sadhuram the paid manager or the partner who was actually present at the time of the taking of the sample could be considered to have been in charge of the business for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act and held liable, even though they were not in the premises when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector.2. The factual position as found ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›