Madhya Pradesh Court May 1991 Judgments
Filomina Mavi Vs. Petric
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-1991
Reported in: II(1991)DMC534; 1991(0)MPLJ860
K.M. Pande, J.1. The point that has arisen for consideration is as to whether after coming into force the Family Courts Act 1984, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition Philomina Bhavi has presented this petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 for judicial separation and maintenance. The opposite party inspite of notice has not filed any written statement and absented himself on the date of hearing. It is the applicant's counsel himself who raised the point of jurisdiction and wanted to make some submissions about this Court's jurisdiction after the Constitution of the Family Court. He was heard and the records have been perused.3. As said earlier, the petitioner has come to this Court with a petition under Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act alleging that she was married with the non-applicant according to Christian rites on 18-6-1973 in the cit...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Prasad Pandoria Vs. Director, Nagar Prashashan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ930
ORDERK.M. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging his transfer order dated 31-7-1989 (Annexure A-1) from Gotegaon Municipality to Kaymore Municipality as a Lower Division Clerk, (in short, the 'L.D.C'), and makes a prayer for allowing him to work as L.D.C. in Gotegaon Municipality.2. The petitioner was appointed as an L.D.C. in Municipal Council, Gotegoan by order dated 19-8-1968 (Annexure A-2) in the time scale of Rs. 80-160 plus Rs. 35/- as dearness allowance and ever since the date of his appointment, he has been working there as an L.D.C. By the impugned order he was transferred to Municipal Council, Kaymore in the same capacity. The petitioner contends that the post of L.D.C. is not transferable and, therefore, the impugned order is bad. The respondent No. 2 has filed his return and has tried to justify the order of transfer by referring to Section 94(7) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, (in short, the 'Act').3. Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra S/O Vinayakrao Mandloi and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ176
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. With a view to make provision for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State Legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (No. 24 of 1973). Section 7 of the Act requires that every market area shall have a market committee having jurisdiction over the entire market area. Such market committee is to be constituted in accordance with Section 11 of the Act. No market committee shall consist of less than eight and more than twenty members, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. These members are to be drawn from different sources. There shall be elected members (number of which again shall be fixed by notification by the State Government) representing agriculturists, representative of traders, a member of State Legislative Assembly returned from the constituency in which the marke...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhavna Adwani Vs. Manohar Adwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992MP105; I(1992)DMC286; 1992(0)MPLJ40
D.M. Dharmaadhikari, J.1. In this appeal by thewife, under the provisions of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as to the Act), the question that needs to be decided is, whether the conduct of the wife, as brought out by evidence on record, amounts to 'wilful neglect' on her part, within the meaning of explanation appended to Section 13(1) of the Act, so as to uphold the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act2. Parties were married on 27-4-1983 at Raipur. Admittedly, they lived together after marriage at Raipur between 27-4-1983 to 19-6-1983. It is also not disputed that one Murlidhar, brother-in-law of the wife, took her back on 20-6-1983 to Katni for a brief stay with her parents.3. The case of the husband is that thereafter he made repeated approaches personally, through his relations and also by sending her letters requesting her to come back home, but she persistently expressed her inability to do so. In the course of these attempts to b...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Plastichem and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ689
ORDERB.C. Verma, J.1. By the impugned order, the trial Court has permitted the decretal debt to be discharged in instalments of Rs. 80,000.00 per year. The direction is that upon nonpayment of two consecutive instalments, the decretal amount shall become executable at once.2. The decree was passed as far back as in February, 1984 and the application for grant of instalments for payment of the decretal amount in terms of Order 20, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure was made on 14-9-1987. By a separate order (separate matter in Civil Revision No. 243 of 1989) the delay in filing that application was condoned. The application was opposed by the applicants. They stated that the non-applicant and its partners are possessed of sufficient means -- assets as also income -- to discharge the decretal sum in lump sum. No such prayer was made in the written statement. The non-applicant adduced some evidence and the Court allowed that application. The revision is directed against that order permittin...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Datt Mishra Vs. Smt. Archana Mishra Alias Premvati Choubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(0)MPLJ466
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal is by the husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) against the judgment dt. 22-12-1989 of the Court of I Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, whereby although on merits, the husband was held entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of alleged cruelty on the part of the wife, but the relief has been refused on the ground that Court at Durg had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court, on the above conclusion, returned the petition to the husband for presentation before the proper Court. 2. Both husband and wife are employed in Govt. service and at the time of marriage and also on the date of petition were posted at two different places. It is also admitted that the marriage between the parties took place at village Chandok in Sagar District. The husband's parental house is at village Bux-waha in Chhatarpur District. On the date of the petition filed in the trial Court seek ing the decree o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accoun ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1991MP378; 1992(0)MPLJ614
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 22A(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (Act XXXVIII of 1949), (for short, the 'Act') against an order dated 29-2-1988, passed by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, the 'Council') in case No. 25-CA(44)/82, exonerating respondent No. 2, a Chartered Accountant and a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, 'respondent No. 2') of the charges levelled against him by the petitioner in his complaint dated 29-6-1982.2. The material facts leading to this revision are that the petitioner, who was an Articled Clerk working with respondent No. 2, made a complaint in Form 9 accompanied by an affidavit, levelling the following charges of misconduct against respondent No. 2:--(a) The respondent had charged a sum of Rs. 6000/- from the complainant as a premium at the time of entering into service as an Articled clerk with him.(b) He had never paid the s...
Tag this Judgment!Balramsingh Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1003MP; 1992(0)MPLJ194
ORDERK.M. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the legality of suspension order dated May 7, 1987 (Annexure P-1) issued against him by the respondent.2. It is stated in the petition that no departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending against him. According to him, while posted at Mahasamund as a Revenue Inspector, he was alleged to have been apprehended by Shri S.K. Verma, D.S.P. (Vigilance) while accepting bribe of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner was then transferred to Dhamtari. According to him, the amount of Rs. 100/- was paid to him by the complainant against the taxes due against him and accordingly he had informed his higher authorities. After expiry of more than 1 year and 2 months from the date of the alleged incident, the impugned order of suspension was passed against him, which is said to be illegal and against the service rules.3. In its reply, the respondent has tried to support the impugned order of suspension...
Tag this Judgment!Fertilizer Corporation of India, Eastern Marketing Zone Employees Asso ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1993(0)MPLJ244
ORDERP.N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., a Government of India undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ) had 48 member work force, 7 officers and 41 workmen in its marketing division in Madhya Pradesh to market the produce of its fertilizer factories at Baroni, Durgapur and Namroop in Assam and West Bengal. The petitioner is a registered trade union representing the workmen of the said marketing division. Fertilizer is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act requiring allocation order known as E.C.A. allocation issued by the Government for its movement. Probably because of considerations of economy in logistics, the Government of India has stopped such E.C.A. allocation to the Corporation in Madhya Pradesh since last 3 years. This necessitated the winding up of the marketing division in Madhya Pradesh and shifting of its staff to establishments of the Corporation out of M. P. On 7-6-1990 this decision was conv...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Gwalior Vs. Mst. Sukhiabai an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ766; 1992(0)MPLJ358
T.N. Singh, J. 1. In this appeal Under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the Act, the Award passed by Claims Tribunal under Section 140 is challenged by the Insurer on a short ground. The question is, if it was incumbent on the said Tribunal to apportion or 'specify' in the impugned award the 'no fault liability' arising out of accident in which two motorvehicles were used so that the entire amount is not required to be paid by the Insurer who is required to discharge that liability of owner of one of the vehicles only. 2. When the appeal came up for admission, I entertained doubt if it could be admitted as the appellant is required as per Section 173 to make deposit of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded, whichever is less. In the instant case, claimant/respondent No. I has been awarded Rs. 7,500/-. Although my attention was drawn to this Court's decision in Jaswant Rao v. Kamlabai, AIR 1990 Madh Pra 354, rendered at the Indore Bench and it was pointed out that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »