Madhya Pradesh Court June 1995 Judgments
Ram Swaroop Pathak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP110; 1996(0)MPLJ483
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the President of Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Laundi, District Chhatarpur (hereinafter called the. 'Society'), has challenged the order dated 1-6-1995 (Annexure-P/ 10) of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chhatarpur, passed under Section 49(8)(ii) of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act'), removing the Managing Committee of Society and authorising the respondent to assume office and manage the affairs of the society till fresh elections are held in accordance with law. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are these: The society is a registered co-operative society under the Act having its object to supply electrical energy which it gets from the M.P. Electricity Board at the rate of 10 Naya Paise per unit, which in turn society supplies to nearly about 15000 consumers at the rate of 65 Naya Paise per unit, the area of s...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Das and anr. Vs. Yaqub Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ414
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Petitioners are the parents of the boy Mohan Lal, aged 17 years, who died on being crushed by the rear wheel of a water tanker propelled by a tractor, in the early hours of the morning of 14.5.1983. The parents filed claim petition against the driver and owner of the tractor-cum-tanker alleging that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that rashness or negligence of the driver has not been established. This order is now challenged.2. There are certain admitted facts in the case. A mass marriage ceremony took place in a hostel complex. There was a shamiyana put up. Some sides of the shamiyana were evidently removed and the tent cloth was lying in heaps on the ground. Deceased Mohan Lal was sleeping on the ground. There is a controversy as to whether at the time of accident he was lying on the tent cloth or under the tent cloth. The adjoining road lies north-south. The tractor-cum-tanker ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran M.S. Vs. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR406]; (1998)IIILLJ199MP
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court and Labour Court, (Annexure P-14) dated January 24, 1994 and (Annexure P-12) dated April 10, 1992.2. Facts -- the petitioner is an employee of Respondent No. 1 and is working as Chargeman. From the inception of his employment the petitioner was enjoying the benefit of 15 days casual leave a year and earned leave one day per 15 days on a calendar year and accumulation of earned leave was allowed to a maximum 180 days as per Leave Rules applicable. On enforcement of the Standing Orders, the petitioner was denied the leave which was larger than as prescribed by the Standing Orders Clause 12 (i). Therefore, the petitioner filed a dispute in the first round before the Labour Court and claimed that he is entitled to leave in accordance with the Leave Rules which were applicable when the petitioner entered in the service and not in accordance ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Rice Mill Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ157
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Heard Counsel.2. The petitioner submits that 'C' Forms had become available by the time, a revision was filed before the authorities under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further submits that these were brought on the record but were not taken into consideration. The petitioner places reliance on Section 39A of the Act. This reads as under :'39-A. Additional evidence on appeal or revision. - A dealer shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary before the appellate or revising authority except where the evidence sought to be adduced is evidence, which the assessing authority had wrongly refused to admit or which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him before the assessing authority or for the production of which adequate time was not given by the assessing authority and in every such case upon the additional evidence bei...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Vs. Rajaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC387
R.P. Awasthy, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 9.7.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 27/89, by virtue of which the order of payment of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- to the daughter of the present petitioner has been set aside and the revision petition filed against the said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has been allowed.2. Facts of the case are that it was not disputed that Radhabai was duly married with Rajaram, according to Hindu Rites about 8 years prior to the filing of the petition dated 20.1.1986 for payment of maintenance allowance to her and to her daughter aged about 15 months.3. Contention of petitioner Radhabai was that her husband Rajaram subjected her to cruelty and ousted her about two years prior to the date of filing of the petition. When she was residing in the house of her maternal uncle, she gave birth to a child (daughter). On some intervention being made by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Paramjeet Singh and ors. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ339
R.S. Garg, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-3-1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1991, by the learned Sixth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Jabalpur, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, the defendants have filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The brief facts leading to the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the suit property was purchased by them on 23-10-1986. Defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the ground floor as licensee of Smt. Kripawatibai. The plaintiffs further allege that one Usha Rani was the niece of Kripawati, the said Usha Rani was kept as a licensee in the premises so that she could look after Smt. Kripawati. After the death of Usha Rani, defendant No. 1, with his sons, namely, Arjun Singh and Ajit Singh, was in occupation of the premises. The plaintiffs further contended that on 14-7-1983, defendant No. 1 informed Smt. Kripawati that contrary to the wishes of Smt. Kripaw...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Kukreja Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC80; 1995LC26(MP); 1995(80)ELT274(MP)
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Oberoi, counsel for the applicant argued that in view of provisions of Sections 8, 9, 13, 19, 44 and 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA for short), the act which is alleged to have been done by the applicant, would be at the most punishable for a sentence of RI for seven years. He further submitted that the applicant is a person serving in bank having no criminal history and therefore, he would not abscond. Shri Oberoi further pointed that the prosecution allegations show that he attempted or made preparation to commit the offence which has been made punishable u/s 56 of FERA. He prayed that applicant be enlarged on bail in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the matters of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. - AIR 1978 SC 429 and Bhagirath Judeja v. State of Gujarat - AIR 1984 SC 372.2. Shri Khan, counsel appearing for non-applicant submitted that applicant has been charged for c...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Ishwardas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1259]; (1997)IIILLJ545MP
C.K. Prasad, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'Corporation') against the order dated November 2, 1992 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court in Case No. 3 E.S.1./85, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the entire dependants' benefit amount after deducting a sum of Rs. 16,994/-, which was already paid to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days.2. Facts giving rise to the application are that the respondent filed an application before the Employees' State Insurance Court which was numbered as Case No. 4/E.S.I./85, for grant of dependant's benefit as contemplated under Section 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Insurance Court by its order dated December 23, 1985 held that the respondent is entitled to receive the dependant's benefit and the appellant herein was directed to make payment. It is not dis...
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Conductors Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector C. Ex. Dvn.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC6; 1997(94)ELT68(MP)
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-7-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Ratlam/respondent No. 1 whereby the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, has rejected the claims of the petitioner of the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner over and above the exemption notification issued in favour of the petitioner.2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are thus : The petitioner M/s. Supreme Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Sejwaya, is a manufacturer of Super Enamled Copper Wire falling under old Tariff Item 33B of Central Excise Tariff having L-4 Licence No. 1/RTM/R-II/EW & C/82 filed two refund claims, one for sum of Rs. 1,10,112.23 for the period from 27-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 and another for Rs. 64,107.93 for the period from 12-4-1984 to 7-1-1985. The Government of India allowed the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty on first clearance up to value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs provided the clearance during the previous financial ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Nigam Vs. J.C. Mills Ltd. and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ120MP
ORDERSacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. This petition has been preferred by employee. Dinesh Kumar against the action of respondent No. 1 of terminating his service. After termination, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court and the Court found that the order of discharge dated March 25, 1980 was illegal and void, but at the same time, the learned Labour Court found vide order Annexure P/l22 that as the petitioner had filed criminal cases against the Senior Officers of respondent No 1 which ended in their acquittal, he had lost the confidence of respondent No. 1. Therefore, instead of being reinstated in service, he be paid a lump sum of Rs. 35,000 as compensation. An option was also given by the Court to the employer. J.C Mills Limited that if they do not like to pay the compensation, the petitioner be reinstated with 25% of the back wages.2. Against the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner as also employer-respondent No. I had preferred appeals before the Industrial Court against t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »