Madhya Pradesh Court August 1995 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.
Anuradha Pal Vs. Jeewan Pal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC207
J.G. Chitre, J.1. When this matter has been called on for hearing, Mr. R. Thanewala present for the applicant. Non-applicant absent. None appears for him. The record shows that a notice of hearing of this petition was sent to non- applicant. Besides that, it being a revision petition the presence of non-applicant is not necessary because it is the duty of the Court to examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which is assailed in this revision petition.2. The grievance of the applicant-wife is that the learned Court below passed an illegal order against her on 28.7.1993 and directed her to pay the expenses and allowance for maintenance of her husband, the non-applicant who has been sent to Civil Jail for 15 days for non-payment of amount of alimony which remained un-paid to applicant-wife.3. Mr. R. Thanewala, learned Counsel for applicant made reference to provisions of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and urged that ...
Essar Steels Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1995LC21(MP); 1996(83)ELT38(MP)
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner firm has set-up a factory at Mandsaur to manufacture twisted bars. The products of the petitioner are subject to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 7-8-1993 (Annexure I) demanding duty of Rs. 1,09,761/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner felt that it is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 202/88. Dubbing the aforesaid order (Annexure I), as illegal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the order and declaration about exemption.3. The respondents have filed the return in opposition.4. I have heard both the sides.5. The c...
Star Strips (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC87; 1995LC23(MP)
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. This is a petition Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries on the business of manufacturing twisted bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act. This activity is carried on in the factory situated at Bhagirathpura, Indore. The Respondent No. 2, after show-cause notice, passed the order dated 20.7.1993 (Annexure P/8) against the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 1,61,947.16 Ps. Under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act and imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- with a direction to confiscate the seized goods with liberty to obtain redemption on payment of fine, of Rs. 1,600/-. This order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is illegally denied the benefit of exemption available through Notificatio...
Rafikunbai Vs. Liyakat Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC317
U.L. Bhatt, C.J.1. Revision-petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her child. The application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Magistrate ordered him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the wife and Rs. 100/- per month to the child, with effect from the date of the application in 1982. In revision filed by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge directed maintenance to be paid from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate, namely, 30.8.1989. This order is now challenged.2. It has to be pointed out that neither of the Courts below gave any rational reason in support of its respective directions. It is, therefore, for this Court to examine the record to see whether it should interfere or not, see Saroj Bai v. Jai Kumar, (1994 JLJ 725 (Full Bench).3. This is a case where the wife and the child in distress and neglected by the respond...
Sakriya and anr. Vs. Krishna Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1165
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. A Division Bench which dealt with these cases referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether an appeal from an appellate order passed in an appeal under any enactment by a single Judge does not lie to the Division Bench under the Letters Patent? Or., whether appeals from appellate orders of a single Judge under such enactments only which specifically bar any further appeal shall not lie before the Division Bench under the Letters Patent2. This reference was made initially in L.P.A. No. 2 of 1984 and in other cases an order was passed stating that this case is also referred to a larger Bench for the reasons stated in L.P.A. No, 2 of 1984, a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned single Judge in an appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the order passed today by us, we have held that the question referred is not proper and reformulated the question and answered the question in the negati...
State Bank of India Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-lab ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR849]; (1998)IIILLJ501MP; 1996(0)MPLJ560
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. The petitioner/Bank by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashment of the award (Annexure G) dated July 29, 1986, passed in case No. CGIT/ LR(R) (38) of 1986 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') directing reinstatement of Respondent No.2, back wages and substituting the punishment of the discharge from service vide order dated April 15, 1983 (Annexure-E), being too harsh to the punishment of stopping of two increments with cumulative effect.2. The fact giving rise to this petition are these. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was appointed in the bank service on June 1, 1974 as Cashier-cum-Clerk at the Hamidia Branch of the Bank since 1981. A departmental enquiry was initiated on the charge sheet dated July 10, 1982 (Annexure A) on the following charges:--(a) That you have made in your own hand and authenticated ...
Pratap Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP172; 1996(0)MPLJ233
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though he has filed an application for renewal of the lease well within time, the State authorities are not considering the application. According to him, his application once suffered deemed refusal and on revision, the Central Government has remanded the matter back. According to him, so long as the application for renewal is pending, the lease would be deemed to be subsisting and if the lease is in subsistence, then the respondents, its officers and employees have no authority to cause any interference in the petitioner's operation of the mine. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after introduction of Rule 24-A(6) in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the petitioner is entitled to operate the mine during the pendency of the application for renewal. The petitioner further submits that the respondents or any other authority has no powers to restrain the petitioner from operating the mine.2. Shri Gupta o...
General Manager, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. So ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC644
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. This is an appeal against award dated 18.1.1988 passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas in Claim Case No. 71-A/83 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application, in favour of claimants-respondents 1 & 2 and against the appellant and respondent No.3.2. Facts of the case in brief are that deceased Rameshchandra aged about 20 years died in a motor accident on 24.1.1983,at about 4.30 p.m. near Rasulpur bridge, when he was returning from the factory to his home. Respondents 1 and 2, i.e., mother and father of the deceased filed an application for compensation of Rs. 76,300/- for the death of their son Rameshchandra, occurred in the motor accident.3. The application was opposed by the appellant and respondent No. 3. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the application of the claimants-respondents and passed the impugne...
Permali Wallance Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ515MP; 1996(0)MPLJ262
S.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P-5) of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') directing the petitioners to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs. 8,625/-to respondent No. 4 earned by him during the period of his employment. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, vide order dated September 6, 1991 (Annexure P-6) passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 6/BPL/90.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are thus - The petitioner is an Engineering Industry engaged in manufacturing and sale of insulated material, Fibre Glass Engineering components etc. Respondent No. 4 was employed as a workman, who vide order dated August 2, 1986, was dismissed, after holding a domestic enquiry from service on a charge of misconduct under Clause 12(1)(m) of the Statutory Standing Orders, framed under M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, ...
Pramod Kaplish Vs. Smt. Alka Kaplish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC60
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent. They were married on 22.1.1980. The husband allegedly deserted the wife on 1980 She filed a suit on 6.3.91 claiming post maintenance from 14.9 90 all the date of filing of the suit as also future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- p.m it is stated that the husband has filed written statement. The wife also filed an interlocutory application seeking direction for payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. till the disposal of the suit. This Court ordered payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. This order is now being challenged in the present revision.2. The husband moved for stay in this Court. This Court passed an ex-parte order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500.00 p.m. until further orders. This interim order continues to be in force.3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner referred me to alarge number of decisions. They indicate under what circumstances ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »