Madhya Pradesh Court July 1998 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.
Prem Babu Kaluaram Sakya Vs. Matsya Krishak Vikas Adhikaran and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ528
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to give extension to his services and has prayed for direction to reinstate him in service with all benefits.4. The petitioner had been granted an appointment on the post of Peon vide the order dated 30-4-1994, which appointment was on a temporary basis and time-bound for period of one year, liable to termination even during this period subject to one month's notice by either side.5. The appointment letter, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-l along with the petition, further indicates that the said appointment had to be treated to be on contract basis. Although the Mukhya Karyapalan Adhikari, respondent No. 1, had requested for extension of the service of the petitioner before the expiry of the period of one year that is before the aforesai...
Kedia Distilleries Limited Vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas233(MP)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated June 26, 1998, passed by the company court in Company Petition No. 22 of 1996 admitting that petition and directing advertisement. The appellant's short case is that he had approached the BIFR for declaring the company sick on June 22, 1998, and had filed an application in this regard before the company court praying for stay of proceedings under Section 22 of the Sick Industries Act but the court still proceeded to admit the company petition by the impugned order. He has attached a copy of the application along with the memo of appeal. 2. A cursory look at the copy shows that it was filed on June 26, 1998, when the matter came up before the court, Therefore, it remained to be seen whether it was listed before it. 3. The record was summoned. Though it contained the application but there was nothing to show that it was listed before the court. 4. Confronted with this situation, the appellant's counsel, Shri Mat...
Agnel Valentine D'Souza Vs. Mrs. Blanche Agnela Piedade D'Souza
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC22
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 55^~DIVORCE ACT, 1869~^ of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (shortly hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by the husband against the judgment dated 6.3.1997 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby his petition under Section 22^~DIVORCE ACT, 1869~^ of the Act for grant of decree of Judicial Separation has been dismissed.2. Some of the facts which are not in dispute are as under:The parties are Catholic Christians. Their parents live in Jabalpur and they also during their education and married life lived at Jabalpur. They developed intimacy during their college days and thereafter married on 3.1.1987 in accordance with Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. Thehusband isemployed asanExecutive in a Medical concern and the wife has taken employment as teacher in Christ Church Boys Higher Secondary School.3. The couple has no issue from the marriage. The wife was pregnant after marriage but unfortunately had to...
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector Vs. Sushila Tripathi and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: II(1999)ACC401; 1999ACJ711
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal by the State has been preferred against the award of Rs. 1,20,000 (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) dated 5.5.1993 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 134 of 1989 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur.2. The case of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi was the husband of respondent No. 1, Sushila Tripathi and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On 5.4.1989 the Police Inspector (Traffic) was checking motor vehicles at Pachpedhi Naka, Ring Road, Raipur, in connection with Traffic Safety Week. The deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi, respondent No. 5 Laxmidhar Diwan and other police officials were also there on duty. During the checking, Police Inspector (Traffic) took a scooter No. CIR 7571 from its owner Prabhakar R. Ambilkar, respondent No. 6 and directed the deceased Police Constable Prafulla Kumar Tripathi to proceed on it along with respondent No. 5, Police Constable Laxmidhar ...
Jagdish Prasad Parashar Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ521
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is a reference under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to this Court made by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna for taking suitable punitive action against the contemner Rajendra Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Satna, in showing scant regard to the communications made to him by the Court for service of summons on the witnesses in the Sessions Trial and thereby causing obstruction in expeditious disposal of the case within the time frame fixed by this Court.2. Sessions Trial No. 88 was pending in the Sessions Court since 1984. On 25-3-1996 in a Misc. Criminal Case No. 1417/96 this Court rejected the prayer of the accused for quashing the whole trial on the ground of inordinate/undue delay. While rejecting the prayer for quashing the proceedings the Court made the following observations and directed conclusion of the Sessions Trial within a period of three months :'This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quash...
Patel B.S. and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ587MP
Dipak Misra, J.1. The factual backdrop, the relief claimed, the question of law being similar these writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in W.P. No. 3592/1997 are herein adumbrated.2. Before I proceed to state the facts which are essential for disposal of these writ petitions, it may be mentioned at the threshold that the petitioners had prayed for quashment of notification dated July 11, 1997 published in the Gazette on July 14, 1997 contained in 'Annexure P4' and for quashing of letter dated August 2, 1997 'Annexure P-5' and letter dated August 8, 1997 'Annexure P-6'. Many a ground has been taken in the writ petition challenging the legal validity of the notification contained in 'Annexure P-4' but in course of hearing Mr. V.S. Dabir, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.G. Dhande for the petitioners have fairly stated that they do not intend to challenge the validity of the notification and wou...
Sitaram S/O Bhagatram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ178
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-6-89 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in suo motu Revision No. 66/A-19/87-88 initiated under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner, being a landless person, had applied to the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 3, for grant of 0.04 acre of land out of Khasra No. 1139/1 under the provisions of the Code. The Competent Authority, taking into consideration the provisions of the Code, read with M.P. Gramo Me Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhumi (Vishes Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970, granted a Patta in favour of the petitioner. The said Patta has been brought on record as Annexure P/2.3. After obtaining of the Patta, the petitioner, as state...
Munda @ Satya NaraIn Choube and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ478
R.P. Gupta, J.1. Two appellants have been convicted by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, vide judgment dt. 12-4-1988 for having committed offence punishable under Sections 395, read with 397 and 396, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment each for these offences.2. The trial Court has found that these accused along with others (total 5 or more) on the night between 23rd and 24th June, 1986, at village Agariya, PS. Majhgawan distt. Jabalpur, committed dacoity in the house of Babulal. The decoits exploded Bombs in the house beat the inmates of the house including ladies and looted them of their cash, ornaments and utensils. When the neighbours came to help the inmates of the house, on their hue and cry, the decoits threw Bombs and one Bomb exploded at Chhedilal neighbour, who died as a result of this explosion and resultant injuries. The inmates of the house were Babulal, his wife Muliya Bai, his son Harilal (PW.1), Rammi Bai, wife of Harilal, Harilal's s...
Takhat Singh S/O Thakur Arjunsinghji Sisodiya Vs. State of M.P. and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ533
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner has retired as Assistant Agriculture Director on 30-6-1984. He felt aggrieved of fixation of pension amount and approached SAT in O.A. No. 9/94, which was decided on 4-9-1995 with the following directions :'They shall examine the whole case of the applicant and if his pay has not been properly fixed as per the Pay Revision Rules. It should be re-fixed according to rules and his pension also shall be calculated accordingly within three months.'2. Petitioner thereafter invoked contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal alleging violation of this order in M. A. No. 85/96 by claiming that Respondent again wrongly fixed his pension by not giving him benefit of Finance Department Circular dated 12-3-1982. This was contested by the respondents explaining that they had rightly fixed the petitioners' pension on their part of the right of Choudhary Pay Scale and that he was not entitled to any benefit under the Circular dated 12-3-1982 which was available to only emplo...
Vindhyachal Super thermal Power Project Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)MPLJ645
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 11-2-1997 made in Case No. 1/96-ID Act/33-C(2). The respondent No. 2 had moved an application Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for payment of the difference of wages. The petitioner raised an objection that as the matter pertains to a Co-operative Society, the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would have no jurisdiction. The said objection was overruled by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sidhi, observing that as Under Section 92 and 93 of the Co-operative Societies Act, application of Industrial Disputes Act has not been excluded, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-Society has filed this petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of R. C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative Mar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »