Madhya Pradesh Court December 1993 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.
Saifi Mohammed and ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: I(1994)ACC377; 1994ACJ1181
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This revision petition presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 17.9.1993, passed by M.A.C.T., Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 67 of 1991, thereby allowing the application moved for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code.2. I have heard Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the question of admission. The main ground on which this revision petition has been pressed is that the Tribunal had rejected the similar prayer on 27.8.1993 and later accepted the same by the impugned order.3. Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel, has placed reliance on V.B. Patil v. Y.L Patil AIR 1977 SC 392, in support of his contention that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that there was no question of res judicata in consideration of the renewed prayer.4. True it is, that the principle of res judicata is attracted and applicable even in the course of the same lis at later stage. However, it is n...
Gendalal Vs. Factory Manager (Chemical) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ433MP
A.G. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed on January 28, 1982 by the Member Judge of the Industrial Court, M.P. Indore in Revision No. 464/MPIR/1979, setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court,. Ujjain for reinstatement and backwages in a case under Section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, read with Standing Orders No. 12 (i) P and 12(1) q.2. The facts leading to this petition in short are that the petitioner was employed with respondent No. 1, The Gwalior Rayon and Silk . (Chemical Division), Nagda as a permanent watchman. During the period of emergency the police wanted to know the whereabouts of another absconding employee Heeralal who was known to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was arrested on September 10, 1976 under Section 151 Cr. P.C. and sent to jail. The petitioner sent application for leave to respondent No. 1 from Jail and also sent a letter to his father requestin...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Banoo and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ860
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This revision petition presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 29.9.1993 passed by III Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Dewas, in Claim Case No. 6 of 1990, thereby dismissing two applications moved under Order 13, Rule 10 and Order 16, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by the applicant of this case.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that NA has filed the claim case for the award of compensation. In this case, owner and driver of the vehicle insured with the applicant, remained ex pane and did not contest the claim. The applicant wanted to contest the same on the grounds available to the aforesaid persons in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The aforesaid provision contained as under:170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.-Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfiedthat-(a) there is collusion between the person making ...
Chandrabhan Sachan Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(0)MPLJ132
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a Research Associate, posted at College of Agriculture, Gwalior, a constituent college of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner by way of regularisation on the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 3-1-1988 and also to pay the petitioner arrears of emoluments consisting of difference between those payable to the Research Associate and those to an Assistant Professor with effect from 25-4-1985, the date of appointment of the petitioner.2. In the year 1984 the respondents advertised certain posts of Research Associates and Assistant Professors. The petitioner applied for appointment as Research Associate. He was so appointed vide order dated 9-4-1985 (Annexure-P/3) on a consolidated stipendiary allowance of Rs. 1250/- per month against the post of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist and po...
Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC100; 1995(80)ELT505(MP)
1. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the opinion that instead of admitting this petition for final hearing, it can be disposed of at this stage alone with suitable observations as the point involved is simple2. The petitioner-company complains that the Collector (Appeals), before whom its appeal is pending is not deciding the application of the Company for exemption from the condition of pre-deposit of the amount recoverable under the order appealed against and the Department is proceeding to recover the amount. Shri Mahajan attempted to convince us that there was a prima facie case in favour of granting exemption from the condition of pre-deposit. However, we are not prepared to hear and decide the application for exemption from the condition of pre-deposit on merits. The grievance of the petitioner that the application is not being decided and in the meanwhile, recovery is being ordered, appears to be genuine.3. Whenever an appeal is filed along with an application for exemp...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. President, State Industrial ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR1125]; (1994)IILLJ886MP
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Respondent No. 3 Poonamchand was appointed as a Conductor in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on November 18, 1978 and was posted to work at Baloda Bazar sub- depot. On August 1, 1979 he was found carrying passengers without ticket. Respondent No. 3 was charge-sheeted and in the regular departmental enquiry he was found guilty of the misconduct for which he was charged. The services of respondent No. 3 were terminated by order dated October 9, 1979. Respondent No. 3, challenged the order of termination as also the legality of the departmental enquiry proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court found the departmental enquiry to be illegal and gave opportunity to the Corporation to lead evidence before it to prove the charges against respondent No. 3. By order dated March 23, 1983 the order terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was set aside by the Labour Court and he wa...
Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC142; 1994(71)ELT671(MP)
ORDERA.G. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioners Jayant Vitamins Limited have filed this petition challenging the notice Annexure-A dated 1-10-1992 and order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Indore - Annexure-B, by which the final order has been passed on the show cause notice.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri. G.M. Chaphekar, the notice Annexure-A is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs on 24-6-1993 is also without jurisdiction. According to him when the show cause notice is also without jurisdiction, then the final order in pursuance to the show cause notice is also without jurisdiction and, therefore, this court has power to entertain a writ petition and alternate relief of filing an appeal before the Competent Tribunal is no bar to entertain this petition.3. We have heard Shri Chaphekar at length and considered the records filed before us. The points raised in this petition may b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›