Madhya Pradesh Court February 1999 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.
Mani JaIn Vs. Sub-divisional Forest Officer-cum-authorised Officer and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ81
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant's truck allegedly transporting 'Sagoon Wood' was seized and later confiscated vide order dated 28-8-1995 passed by respondent No. 1. She took appeal to respondent No. 2 on the ground that she had no knowledge about the prohibited transportation of the wood and that she was kept in dark by the hirer of the truck. But her appeal was dismissed by order dated 14-11-1996 by respondent No. 2. She thereafter filed a Criminal Revision before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore under Section 15-B of the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. (hereinafter called as 'the Adhiniyam') but failed there too. She then preferred W.P. No. 1365/97 before this Court which also met the same fate, though on a different reasoning. The Writ Court held as under :-'The second revision in Criminal Procedure Code is barred and in view of the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 381, the Writ Jurisdiction is not permitted to be used normally to circumvent the power of S...
Smt. Mani JaIn Vs. Sub-div. Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1800
B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant's truck allegedly transporting 'Sagoon Wood' was seized and later confiscated vide order dated 28-8-95 passed by respondent No. 1. She took appeal to respondent No. 2 on the ground that she had no knowledge about the prohibited transportation of the wood and that she was kept in dark by the hirer of the truck. But her appeal was dismissed by order dated 14-11-96 by respondent No. 2. She thereafter filed a Criminal Revision before the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, Under Section 15-B of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter called as 'the Adhiniyam') but failed there too. She then preferred W. P. No. 1365/97 before this Court which also met the same fate, though on a different reasoning. The writ Court held as under :-The second revision in Cri. Procedure Code is barred and in view of the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 381 : (1979 Cri LJ 318), the Writ Jurisdiction is not permitted to be used normally to circumvent the power of Seco...
Ram Ratan Vs. Janpad Panchayat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1442MP; 1999(2)MPLJ449
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition as not maintainable, the petitioner-appellant has now come up in letters patent appeal, seeking redress praying for the reversal thereof.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent-petitioner, and have carefully perused the record.3. The writ petition giving rise to this appeal had been filed seeking the quashing of the order, dated September 14, 1995, whereunder for want of sanction for the post of Chowkidar in the establishment of Janpad Panchayat, Dabra, the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with. The petitioner had further prayed for a direction requiring the respondent in the writ petition to regularise his services and to pay him the salary, etc., including arrears thereof treating him to be a peon appointed on regular basis.4. The petitioner claimed that he had been...
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Dal Chand Rathore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ658MP
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent/ petitioner, the employer-appellants have now come up in Letters Patent Appeals seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent/petitioner, and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts in brief shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner- respondent holds a diploma in Electrical Engineering which he has obtained in the year 1980. He had been appointed as 'Technician Apprentice' under the Apprentices Act, 1961 in the establishment of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on a fixed stipend of Rs. 520/-per month vide the order dated November 10, 1980 and had joined as such on November 26, 1980. His training period was extended for a period of s...
Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mary Adit and anr. Vs. Jagdish Dhannulal S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ343
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Shahdol seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 14-8-1997 passed in Revision case No. 125-Teen/97 which arose from the order dated 22-4-1997 passed, in Case No. Credit /97/770 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rewa.2. Brief facts for disposal of the petition are that on 22-4-1997, the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies sent a letter to the petitioners craving indulgence to the fact that Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Shahdol was defaulter to the medium term godown loan - principal' amount being Rs. 82,673.45 p. and interest thereon as on 1-1-997 being Rs. 92,510.15 p. and as the amount was overdue for more than 12 months, the representative of the said Vipnan Sahkari Sanstha could not hold the office of a Director for the petitioner, therefore, action under Section 19-AA of the Madhya Pradesh...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sekdiya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ778
B.A. Khan, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 61 of 1998 (Claim Case No. 53 of 1995), 62 of 1998 (C.C. No. 63 of 1995), 63 of 1998 (C.C. No. 54 of 1995), 64 of 1998 (C.C. No. 62 of 1995), 147 of 1998 (C.C. No. 97 of 1995), 128 of 1998 (C.C. No. 95 of 1995), 133 of 1998 (C.C. No. 99 of 1995), 245 of 1998 (C.C. No. 58 of 1995), 395 of 1998 (C.C. No. 58 of 1995); 247 of 1998 (C.C. No. 60 of 1995) and 397 of 1998 (C.C. No. 60 of 1995) filed by the non-applicant insurance company and M.A. Nos. 395 and 397 of 1998 by claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') arising out of the awards passed by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manawar, District Dhar, on 1.10.97 (C.C. Nos. 53, 63, 54 and 62 of 1995), 27.11.97 (C.C. Nos. 97, 95 and 99 of 1995) and 19.1.1998 (C.C. Nos. 58 and 60 of 1995). In all the appeals common questions of law and facts are involved and they arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are ...
Onkar Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ807MP
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard on admission.By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated October 31, 1998 (Annexure-P/3), by which the Petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule 12(3)(b)(6) of the 'M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963' on the charge of misconduct. The Petitioner was employed as a Conductor in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and a notice was issued to him on the basis of the report of the Accounts Department that he had deposited the amount in the Depot after the prescribed date. It is alleged that proceeding on assumption that the fact with regard to the delay in the deposit of the amount of collection was not disputed and it was therefore, not necessary to hold any enquiry, he was dismissed from service.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that Rule 12 providing for disciplinary action for misconduct requires holding of an enquiry in accordance with Sub-rule (4) thereof before imposition of the...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhuvnesh Pathak and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1069
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. The respondent No. 1, Bhuvnesh Pathak, widow of late Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak, filed the claim case against the driver/respondent No. 2, Manoj Pathak, who is her own son as well as against the appellant. It was claimed by her in the application for grant of compensation that the respondent No. 2, Manoj Pathak was driving the tractor along with a trolley, bearing registration No. MP 16-A-5411. The trolley was loaded with stones and Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak was sitting in the trolley. The tractor and trolley turned turtle and on account of that Paramsukh alias Parmeshwar Pathak died. He was the owner and insured of the tractor.2. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the respondent No. 1, Bhuvnesh Pathak, after rejecting the contention of the appellant that the insured was not entitled to claim any damages.3. In this appeal, it is sought to be argued that the insured is not covered by the policy and no liability can be at...
Julekha Bi D/O Ummed Ali and anr. Vs. Mohammad Fazal S/O Habibulla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ64
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by a Muslim wife against that part of the order by which it has been held that she is not entitled to maintenance allowance from her husband beyond the period of Iddat after she has been divorced.2. Petitioner No. 1 Julekha Bi applied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) claiming maintenance allowance from her husband Mohammed Fazal. She was his legally wedded wife. By order dated 22-3-1993, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month to his wife for her maintenance. The husband complied with this order upto 10-5-1996. He divorced her on 11-5-1996. In the proceeding under Section 125(3) of the Code instituted by the wife for execution of the original order he filed an application for cancellation of the order on the ground that his wife is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from him after her divorce. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the husband but in ...
Julekha Bi D/O Ummed Ali and anr. Vs. Mohammad Fazal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3890
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by a muslim wife against that part of the order by which it has been held that she is not entitled to maintenance allowance from her husband beyond the period of Iddat after she has been divorced.2. Petitioner No. 1 Julekha Bi applied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) claiming maintenance allowance from her husband Mohammad Fazal. She was his legally wedded wife. By order dated 22-3-1993, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month to his wife for her maintenance. The husband complied with this order up to 10-5-1996. He divorced her on 11-5-1996. In the proceeding under Section 125(3) of the Code instituted by the wife for execution of the original order he filed an application for cancellation of the order on the ground that his wife is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from him after her divorce. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the husband but in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »