Madhya Pradesh Court January 1991 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.
Madhu Sudan Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ712
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant whose suit for declaration of his termination from service as illegal and void and for grant of ancillary reliefs was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.2. The appeal was admitted on 22-4-1987 for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law : -'(i) Whether the appellant after the order of acquittal passed by the High Court was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service?(ii) Whether the denial of salary to the plaintiff by the respondents from 29-9-1976 till he joined on 17-11-1980 was justified?(iii) Whether the termination of service of the plaintiff-appellant on two occasions without holding a departmental inquiry as contemplated under C. C. S. (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, is justified?(iv) Whether M. P. Employees and Contingency Employees Service Rules are applicable to the plaintiff/appellant in the absence of any order of appoin...
Harishankar Kamarlal Vashiya Vs. Khayalichandra Roopchand Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ15
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (for short, the 'CPC'), is made by Civil Judge, Class I, Shivpuri, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1/1978, whereby the Court, on its own motion, entertained a doubt and after drawing up a statement of facts of the case, has referred the following three points for decision of this Court : -v D;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk lquokbZ dhtkus okyh dfFkr vihy dsoy in uke xyr fy[k nsus ls vihy dk fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k voS/k,oa 'kwU; gks tkrk gSc D;k O;ogkj U;k;ky; oxZ 1] /kkjk 341] naMizf;k lafgrk vkSj /kkjk 1952] naM izf;k lafgrk ds varxZr vij ftyk U;k;/kh'k;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k vFkok nksuks dks iz'kklfud :i ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; jgrk gSl D;k dfFkr iz'kuksa ds mkj ds voyksduesa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk vkijkf/kd iqujkosnu 85@1979 ,oa vkijkf/kdiqujh{k.k ekad 39@1979 esa ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; bl U;k;ky; ij 1980 tcyiqj ykWtuZy i`'B 146] xuir yky fo:) yk;d pUn ds voyksdu esa cU/kudkjd jgrs gSa 2. Before dealing with th...
Shabbir HussaIn Gulam HussaIn Vs. Rubab Bai Inayat Hussain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ449
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in the suit accommodation situated in House No. 14, Street No. 2, Maharani road, Indore. Admittedly the suit premises were let out for residential purpose. The respondent plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds under Sections 12(1 )(a) and (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This suit was registered as C.O.S. No. 272-A/84 in the Court of IXth Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. After trial the suit was dismissed on 25-11-1986 on both the counts. In Civil Regular Appeal No. 1 of 1987-A, the Vlllth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore reversed the judgment and decree and passed a decree on the ground under Section 12(l)(d) of the Act alone. This is a second appeal against that judgment.2. On 17-1-1990, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :'Whether the facts of stitching by the wife of ...
Harishankar Vs. Khyalichandra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2153
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (for short, the 'CPC'), is made by Civil Judge, Class I, Shivpuri, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1/1978, whereby the Court, on its own motion, entertained a doubt and after drawing up a statement of facts of the case, has referred the following three points for decision of this Court :--v D;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds}kjk lquokbZ dh tkus okyh dfFkr vihy dsoy in uke xyr fy[k nsus ls vihy dk fu.kZ;,oa vkns'k voS/k ,oa 'kqU; gks tkrk gSAc D;k O;ogkj U;k;ky; oxZ 1/kkjk 341 n.M izf;k lafgrk vkSj /kjk 1952 n.M izf;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr vijftyk U;k;k/kh'k ;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k vFkok nksuksa dk iz'kkfud :I ls v/khuLFkU;k;ky; jgrk gSd D;k dfFkr iz'uksa dsmkj ds voyksdu esa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk vkijkf/kd iqujkosnu 85 @ 79 ,oavijkf/kd iqujh{k.k ekad 39 @ 1979 tcyiwj ykW tujy i`'B 146 xuiryky fo#yk;dpUn ds voyksdu esa cU/kudkjd jgrs gSaA2. Before dealing with the points, few facts need be mentioned : Khyali Chandr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›