Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
indore Development Authority, Indore Vs. Satyapal Anand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP74; 2000(2)MPLJ229
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of order which has been passed by 5th Addi tional District Judge, Indore in the matter of Civil O.S. 89-A/89. The said suitwas filed by Shri Satyapal Anand for a decree against the present petitioner, along with Resp. 2- Indore Motor Parts Dealers Association-co-plaintiff in the said suit. As application in view of provisions of Order 11. Rule 12 r/w 151, CPC seeking discovery was filed by Resp. No. 1.- Satyapal Anand on 4-2-91 and by that application the discovery was sought in view of Order 11, Rule 12. On 4-2-91 the learned trial Court rejected that application. Resp. 1 challenged that order by presenting Civil Revision No. 42/92. Said revision petition was heard and decided by this High Court by its order dt. 1-2-95 and by virtue of that order the present petltioner-Indore Development Authority was directed to make discovery on or before 3-3-95. It was also made clear that failing to comp...
S.P. Anand Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT203
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner, a chronic Public Interest Litigant, has filed this PIL, to assail grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators in M.P. State and has also challenged the vires of M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam on the ground that it suffered from legislative incompetence, as any such grant of pension was not authorised by provisions of Article 195 of the Constitution which only provided for payment of salaries and allowances to the Legislators and not Pension.2. The point in issue stands already settled by a Division Bench of this Court rendered at Main Seat Jabalpur in Raghu Thakur v. State, (AIR 1997 MP 223) holding enactment as intra-vires and validating the grant and payment of pension to Ex-legislators on the strength of Entry 42 in the State List of 7th Schedule of the Constitution read with Article 246.3. We have gone through the judgment (supra) and we find ourselves in total agreement with the reasoning adopted therein and...
Jeetu Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT150
ORDERA.K. Gohil. J.1. In this case, there is a peculiar social problem between the parties. The petitioner is claiming a right of compassionate appointment on the ground that now he has become major and his father late Babulal had expired during the course of his employment in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Khargone leaving behind Respondent No. 3 as widow, the petitioner-- his son and five other children. Thus, there are six children in total left behind by late Babulal. The Respondent No. 3, widow of the deceased Babulal, after getting appointment on compassionate ground, has remarried with another person, leaving all the six children on road at the mercy of their grand-father Narayan. Now the petitioner is seeking a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to provide him appointment on compassionate basis in place of Respondent No. 3, on the ground that after her remarriage, sh...
Surana Drillers and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)MPHT270; 2000(1)MPLJ505
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashment of Annexures P/1 and P/2, orders passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department by which, he cancelled the registration of the petitioners on the ground that in the event of acceptance of their tender, they could not execute the agreement for drilling of tube-wells. Therefore, their amount of earnest money is forfeited and their registration is also cancelled.2. The petitioners have filed this petition for challenging the action of the Respondents regarding forfeiture of earnest money as well as cancellation of registration on the ground of violation of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided before cancelling the registration. In reply, the Respondents justified their action regarding forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of the registration of the petitioners with the Department as the contractors on the basis of p...
D.R. Lekhera Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4795
ORDERR.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted by Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). He is a public servant as Asstt. Engineer in Irrigation Deptt. According to the prosecution, investigations were made under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act: that he had assets more than his know sources of income. He acquired wealth in his own name and Benami in the name of his wife and other family members. According to the prosecution his known source of income was limited to Rs. 23.07.545/- during the period 1978 to 1989. His wealth was worth Rs. 47,54,741/-. Hence charges were directed to be framed by the impugned order.2. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the Court could not take cognizance as there was no sanction by the prescribed authority or by the authority who was competent to remove him from service. The sanction is by Secre...
Ashish Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP91
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent No. 1 for rechecking and retotalling of his answer books and for any other relief which this Court considers expedient. 2. The petitioner appeared in 12th Class examination in March, 1998 conducted by the respondent No. 1. His roll number was 23701527. The main result was declared on 15-6-1998. There was 'RWL category' in this result. The roll number of the petitioner was also in this category. It was declared that the results of this category would be announced subsequently. The petitioner's roll number came in this category because his answer book In 'English' was missing. The result of the RWL category was declared on 5-8-1998 and the petitioner was declared passed in 1st Division. The mark sheet wassupplied to the petitioner on 7-8-1998. He applied for rechecking/retotalling of his answer books with a fee of Rs. 300/- on 18-8-1998. This application was delivere...
Harwansh Kumar Patel and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Mandla and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000MP97
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-5-1988 (Annexure P-1) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandlh.2. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Godawaribai submitted an application under Section 6 of the M.P. Gramln Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) stating therein that her husband Ram Bharos had pledged a golden hasli of about 16 tolas with Shankarlal Patel, who was the original petitioner in this petition before 15-8-1982. It was also stated therein that the respondent No. 2 and her husband both were 'marginal farmers' within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 23-5-1988 held that the respondent No. 2 was holding 1.90 acres of agricultural land and therefore, she was a 'marginal farmer'. He also found that the transaction of pledge had taken place prior to 16-8-1982. He directed Shankarlal Patel to return the golden has...
P.K. Pande Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT455
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been preferred against the award of the Arbitration Tribunal dated 7-4-1997 whereby the claim preferred by the appellant/contractor has been dismissed in toto and the counter-claim preferred by the Irrigation Department through its Engineer and the State has been allowed by directing the contractor to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,637/- (inclusive of interest) due upto the date of filing of claim i.e. 26-11-1996 and further interest at the contractual rate from 26-11-1996 on the outstanding amount of loan advanced in the sum of Rs. 94,658/-.2. The facts not in dispute are that the applicant/contractor was awarded work for excavation of Chachai Distributary from Ch. 95 to Ch. 225 as part of the Bansagar Multipurpose River Valley Project. The contractor was sanctioned a total loan of Rs. 5 lacs for purchase of machinery which was an e...
Dhar Cement Limited Vs. Cegat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC553; 1999LC561(MP); 1999(114)ELT391(MP)
ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioner claimed and took benefit of concessional excise duty under notification 23/89 as amended by notification 123/89. Later Revenue put the company on notice raising a demand of Rs. 45 lacs or so on the plea that the benefit was taken wrongly. Upon adjudication demand was 'educed to Rs. 21 lacs.2. Petitioner took appeal to Commissioner (A) who allowed the appeal and quashed the demand. Revenue took appeal against this to CEGAT which came up for consideration and disposal before it on 24-12-1998. But on this fateful day petitioner's counsel Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay could not reach in time due to delay in the train arrival. He reached at 2.00 PM and requested the Tribunal to hear him. But Tribunal declined on the ground that it had heard appellant (Revenue) counsel and allowed the appeal.3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on the sole ground that Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have heard him in the matter before allowing tine a...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ255; 1999(2)MPLJ541
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal and the connected appeal Misc. Appeal No. 218/1997 between the same parties under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the Insurance Company has been filed against the common award dated 2-1-1997 passed in two Claim Petitions No. 77/90 and 78/90 respectively arising out of the same accident by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni and is being decided by this common judgment with connected appeals M. A. No. 306/97 Gopal Singh and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Joli and Ors. and M.A. No. 307/97 Gopal Singh and Anr. v. Rajendra Kumar Joli and Ors. filed by the claimants in the two claim cases. The appellant-Insurance Company in this appeal and in connected appeal No. 218/97 filed by it, prays for a direction that it be absolved from the liability for payment of compensation on the ground that on the date and time of accident, there was no insurance coverage. The other two connected appeals M.A. 306/97 and M.A. 30...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »