Madhya Pradesh Court December 1992 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.
Gwalior Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP118
S.K. Chawla, J. 1. The question involved in this, writ petition is, whether a consumer of high tension indudstrial power, on account of interrupted supply of electrical energy due to power cuts, is relieved of the obligation to pay minimum monthly charges and is liable to pay only to the extent of electrical energy actually consumed by him?2. The petitioner, M's. Gwalior Steels Private Limited, is a Company under the Companies Act, 1956, having a Mini Steel Plant at Banmore, District Morena. M. P. manufacturing special alloy steel castings and Section. The plant was granted high tension industrial power connection by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (respondent herein) under an agreement, Annexure A. It was undertaken under the agreement that the petitioner would be supplied electricity for a load of 3500 K.V.A. (Kilo Volt Amperes) on 33 K.V. That demand of electricity having been contracted to be supplied is called 'contract demand', a phrase which may have to he used in discussion he...
Suresh Chandra MaThe Vs. Jiwaji University and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ462MP; 1993(0)MPLJ805
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of termination of his service dated January 23, 1986 (Annexure P-6) as also the appellate order dated September 11, 1987 (Annexure P-8), confirming the said order.2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by order dated April 21, 1982 of the Registrar, Jiwaji University, Gwalior. Previous to that, the petitioner had worked intermittently on that post. The petitioner continued to work on the temporary post until November 6, 1984, when by an order passed on that day, he was placed on probation for a period of two years. But before that, on March 23, 1984 the petitioner was granted 10% additional allowance on his basic salary with effect from April 21, 1982 for working on the post of Upper Division Clerk. On November 15, 1984, he was granted further allowance at the rate of 20% on his basic salary with effect from April 1, 1984 on the...
Smt. Ramdularibai and ors. Vs. Chhatrapal Singh Punjabi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1992
Reported in: AIR1993MP90; 1993(0)MPLJ143
ORDERK.L. Issrani, J. 1. The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 9-10-1991, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in Revenue Case No. 2A of 1990 (6) 1990-91 dismissing the case of the applicants landlords.2. The applicants-landlords had filed an application under Section 23A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that they are owners and landlords of the suit shop and the non-applicant is the tenant in one of their shops at Rs. 500/ - per month. The suit premises are required by the appellant No. 1 for his son applicant No. 2.3. In reply, the non-applicant submitted that the land on which the suit shop is located was given on lease to the applicant No. 1 by the Municipal Council, on which she had constructed two shops. Since she wanted to dispose of the suit shop, the non-applicant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the applicants in Civil Court, which is...
Prem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector (Appeals), Central Excise and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC281
ORDER01-12-19921. Heard Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition challenging rejection of an application Under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, by the Collector (Appeals), Indore. The said provision requires that every appeal should be accompanied by a deposit of the amount of the demand appealed against. The condition of deposit can be waived by the Appellate Authority. In this case the Appellate Authority refused to waive the condition of deposit. According to Shri Upadhyaya the order is a non-speaking one. He tried to support his contention by citing some rulings. We are not satisfied that the impugned order is not a speaking order, though the order is short it is based on relevant considerations. Moreover, now the appeal also has been decided finally by the Collector (Appeals) and an appealable order has been passed. The petitioner is free to approach the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. It would...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›