Madhya Pradesh Court February 1995 Judgments
S.K.M. Fabrics Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP82; 1995(0)MPLJ1031
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company owning what is described as a Textile Mill at Dewas. The petitioner claims to be manufacturing 'man-made fabrics' in this mill. Annexure C is an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the M.P. Electricity Board for supply of high tension electrical energy in bulk for purposes of the mill. Tariff was initially governed by notification dated 1-5-1995 (Annexure D) and tariff for category (I-D) (consumers other than those covered under I-A, I-B and I-C was applicable to the petitioner. Tariff was revised by notification dated 1-6-1986 (Annexure E) bringing in a new category of 'textile mills' as (I-D) and making (I-E) a residuary category. The petitioner claims that its mill is a textile mill coming in the category (I-D). Vide notification dated 29-11-1986, the earlier notification dated 1-6-1986 was amended retrospectively with effect from 1-6-1986 adding a clause regarding applicability of (I-D). The new clause states t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Khan and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)11; 1995(0)MPLJ620
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The order passed in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1992, Ali Sher Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The two revisions are directed against the order dated 21-4-1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 234/91 in a trial under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, Camp Dabra, whereby on the application of the complainant the Court ordered under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), to add 3 persons, namely, Abdul Karim Khan, Yusuf Khan and Ali Sher Khan, as additional accused to be tried together with the other accused to stand trial.3. Facts giving rise to the two revisions are that Abdul Rashid, the complainant, lodged the first information report at the Police Station Pichhore, on 26-12-1990 stating therein that when the complainant with his son Maqbool and 3 others, Mohan Padey, Ghanshyam Singh, Chhakka was returning to his home, i...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Khan and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3420
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The order passed in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1992 (Ali Sher Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh). 2. The two revisions are directed against the order dated 21-4-1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 234/91, in a trial under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the VIth Additional-Sessions Judge, Gwalior, Camp Dabra, whereby on the application of the complainant the Court ordered under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), to add 3 persons, namely, Abdul Karim Khan, Yusuf Khan and Ali Sher Khan, as additional accused to be tried together with the other accused to stand trial. 3. Facts giving rise to the two revisions are that Abdul Rashid, the complainant, lodged the first information report at the Police Station Pichhore, on 26-12-1990 stating therein that when the complainant with his son Maqbool and 3 others, Mohan Padey, Ghanshyam Singh, Chhakka, was returning to his ho...
Tag this Judgment!Avn Tubes Limited Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP53
T.S. Doabia, J.1. Plea of fraud has been highlighted at the time of argument. The manner in which this plea has been projected has not been pleaded in the plaint. As a matter of fact, the appellant wants an inference of fraud to be drawn even though there is no express mention regarding this in the plaint. This appears to be the reason for rejection of prayer for interim injunction. There were two suits and consequently two appeals have been preferred.2. The dispute in two appeals is with regard to the same and similar controversy.3. The appellant figured as a plaintiff in two suits seeking permanent injunction. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was also filed. As noticed above, injunction was declined by the Court below. This has led to the filing of two Miscellaneous Appeals.4. The facts for the purpose of this appeal be noticed. These have been taken from Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/ 95. But befor...
Tag this Judgment!Gautamlal Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1995MP257; 1995(0)MPLJ858
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. This petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of Act No. 15 of 1982 of M. P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982, Part II School Building Cess as ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. M. P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982 as published in M. P. Rajpatra dated 6th May, 1982 Part II is quoted below:'Part II School Building Cess-Definitions: In this part, unless the context otherwise requires - (a) 'Code' means the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959); (b) 'school building cess' means the school building cess levied under Section; (c) 'holder of land' means a tenure holder, occupancy tenant or a Government lessee; (d) 'holding means all land held by a holder in the State in any one or more than one of the capacities specified in Clause (c); (e) 'member of a Scheduled Caste' means a member of any caste, race or tribe or part of a group within a caste, race or tribe specified as Scheduled Caste with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Western Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ439
ORDERM.V. Tamaskar, J.1. The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 2557/83, Gwalior Rayon Mfg. and Anr. v. The State of U. P. and Ors., M.P. No. 3353/84, Chadha Re-rolling Mills v. The Addl. Asstt. Commr. of Sales Tax and Anr., M.P. No. 1179/85, Chadha Re-rolling Mills v. The Addl. Asstt. Commr. of Sales Tax, M.P. No. 2898/94, Kailash Auto Builders v. The State of M. P., M.P. No. 2276/85, Chadha Re-rolling Mills v. The Addl. Commr. of Sales Tax, M.P. No. 3458/85, The Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. The State of M. P., M.P. No. 1840/89, Sunil Trading Co. v. The State of M. P., M.P. No. 704/92, M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. The State of M. P., M.P. No. 696/93, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. The State of M. P., M.P. No. 2409/85, Kamal Dal Mill v. The State of M. P.2. The petitioners challenge the validity of Section 7(5) of M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act No. 50/76) (hereinafter called the Entry Tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Premlal Pradhan and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ913
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Petitioners belong to an aboriginal tribe by caste Gond. They are Bhumiswamis of certain land within the Government Forest Land. They desire to cut and sell trees standing in their private land some of which fall within the category of specified trees under the provisions of the M. P. Protection of Aboriginal Tribes (Interest in Trees) Act, 1956. Petitioner filed application before the Collector as required under Rule 2 of the Rules dated 6-1-1960 framed by the State Government under Section 241 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Applications were submitted in Form A prescribed into Rules. Some of the applications were submitted in 1981 and the rest in 1983. By orders dated 30-11-1983, the Collector rejected these applications. These orders are now challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The impugned orders indicate that the petitioners had already sold quite a large number of trees from their land and that cutting of trees has led to dimi...
Tag this Judgment!Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ575
R.S. Garg, J.1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff against the order, dated 26-10-1993 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Original Suit No. 15-A of 1990, whereby, the Court below, granting the application of defendant No. 3 respondent No. 1, State Bank of India, has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.2. Brief facts leading to the case are that the defendant No. 2, the Emirates Telecommunication Corporation Ltd., floated a tender inviting offers from suppliers and manufacturers for the supply of telephone cables and wires. Under the conditions of the tender, the tenderers were required to submit a tender bond in form of Bank guarantee in a sum of one lac U. A.R. Dirhams, irrevocable and unconditional with the stipulation that the tender bond submitted by the prospective supplier would authorise the defendant No. 1 to withdraw the total amount of guarantee on its first...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Maize Products Vs. State Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ727MP
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. The order passed in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 3057 of 1994 (Raja Ram Maize Products v. State Industrial Court), Writ Petition No. 3058 of 1994, (Raja Ram, Maize Products v. State Industrial Court) and Writ Petition No. 3059 of 1994 (Raja Ram Maize Products v. State Industrial Court). In all those petitions the workman was dismissed in 1985. The said dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided the matter in favour of the worker holding that the worker was entitled for reinstatement and three-fourths backwages.2. The said order of reinstatement has been challenged before the State Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur. The State Industrial Court by order dated August 4, 1994, directed to make payment of full wages last drawn under Section 65(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act. Section 65(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act reads thus :'(3) Where in any case, a Labour C...
Tag this Judgment!Sharif Ahmed Vs. Imaman Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: I(1995)DMC465
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They were married in 1976 and a son was born to them in 1977. After the birth of the child, the husband did not maintain the wife and the child. The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of atleast Rs. 300/- for her and herself child alleging that her husband is a whole-sale bangle dealer and has five or six acres of land and an income of over Rs. 1200/- per month. The respondent husband also asserted that the wife and the son are being maintained by his 'in-laws. The learned Magistrate accepted this plea and dismissed the petition. In revision, the Sessions Court ordered payment of maintenance to the wife at Rs. 300/- per month and to the son at Rs. 300/- per month with effect from 11.2.1988, the date on which the revision petition was filed. This order is now challenged by the husband. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made it clear that he is not interested in challeng...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »