Madhya Pradesh Court February 2000 Judgments
Shree Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas339(MP); 2000(72)ECC280; 2000(122)ELT338(MP)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the notice of detention dated August 12, 1997 (Annexure F) issued under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ujjain (respondent No. 1), whereby the goods of the petitioner-company have been detailed and attached. 2. Originally the notice (Annexure F) was sought to be impugned mainly on the ground that even before issuance of the notice (Annexure F), a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), had been made by the petitioner-company to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short. 'the BIFR') for preparation and sanction of schemes for reconstruction of the petitioner-company which had become sick. The application under Section 15 was made on August 8, 1997, to the Registrar of the Board and an information in this regar...
Tag this Judgment!Adhartal Shiksha Samiti and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP3; 2000(3)MPLJ43
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. In all these writ petitions, common questions of law with little variation of facts arise for determination and as such they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') made advertisement in the Newspapers on 19-3-1991 inviting applications from educational institutions for allotment of the land in itsvarious schemes. Petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement submitted their applications. Petitioner Adhartal Shiksha Samiti i.e., petitioner in W. P. No. 1263/96 was allocated 1,07,880 sq. ft. of land for construction of a High School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 1335/96 i.e., Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society was allocated 1,24,630 sq. ft. of land of construction of High School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 1346/96 i.e., Motiram Mandhyani was allocated 1,24,750 sq. ft. of land for construction of High School and College. Petitioner in W. P. No. 2619/96 i.e., Shri Ram Mandir Shiks...
Tag this Judgment!Mangibai W/O Keshuram and ors. Vs. Suresh S/O Kishan Patel and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1117; AIR2001MP34; 2000(2)MPHT357; 2000(3)MPLJ51
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri V.K. Jain for the petitioners.2. Notice has been sent to Insurance Company. This is a Revision petitioner and the point involved is disbursement of the compensation amount which has been awarded to the claimants of deceased victim. Mangibai happens to be the widow of deceased Keshuram. Claimant Hemaji is the father of deceased Keshuram and claimant Smt. Bardibai is his mother. The M.A.C.T. Manasa directed that the amount of Rs. 30,570/- be given to Mangibai but out of that Rs. 10570/- should be given to her in cash and remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- be deposited in Fixed Deposit of six years term. The M.A.C.T. directed that the amount of compensation awarded to the minors be deposited in Fixed Deposit in their names for protecting their interest. An application was moved by Mangibai for getting the said amount released to her for maintaining the minor children. The M.A.C.T. Manasa, dismissed that application and, therefore, the petitioners have approached ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Appellate Authority for Indl. and Financial Reconst.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT153(MP)
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This petition by the Union of India is directed against the Order dated 28-4-1998, passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, dismissing appeal of the petitioner against the Order passed by the B. I. F. R. rejecting their application for permission to sell the material detained by the Order of detention passed Under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules.2. During the pendency of this petition, the B I F R has passed final Order Under Section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, declaring the respondent No. 3 - Company, as Sick Unit (vide Annexure R-3/1). Section 22 of the Act of 1985 has in such a situation, the effect of suspension of every legal proceeding commenced or pending for recovery of any dues against the sick company. Since the respondent-Company has been declared Sick by the B.I.F.R., any action taken by the petitioner - Department for recovery of the dues against the Company s...
Tag this Judgment!Komalchand Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT275
Arun Mishra, J.1. Appellant Komalchand who was a police constable has been convicted for an offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year. Out of the amount of fine, Rs. 4,000/- has been ordered, to be paid to prosecutrix Neeta Khare.2. In all two persons were put. to trial, namely, Nandkishore and Komalchand. The charge against the accused persons was commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, Ku. Neeta Khare was aged 16-17 years at the relevant time and was a student of Class XI in the Maharani Laxmibai Higher Secondary School, Sagar. Sister of co-accused Nandkishore was friend of Neeta Khare and Neeta and Nandkishore knew each other. On 25th of April, 1985 prosecutrix Neeta Khare went to give, the examination but did not come back to the house. According to the prosecution case, she was given some int...
Tag this Judgment!Awadh Narayan Shrivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT168
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 15-2-99 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar whereby he has refused to reject the plaint in exercise of power conferred on him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the basis of an application moved by the sole defendant/petitioner.2. Sans unnecessary details the facts as have been unfolded are that the defendant/petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No. 2884 which is installed at his residence Itwari Ward, Sagar. The Department of Telecommunication sent three consolidated bills amounting to Rs. 45,678/-. The petitioner disputed with regard to the quantum of the bills. The Department instead of taking any action on the dispute raised by the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 20-B/1996 before the competent Court for realisation of the aforesaid amount. After the suit was filed t...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Bhargava Vs. Suryakant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT395
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an Order passed by the learned VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, dated 31-8-82 in Insolvency Case No. 1/80, the non-applicant No. 3 have preferred this appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short Act). Facts in short to appreciate the issue involved in the application out of which this appeal eminets need mention infra.2. Respondent is the applicant in the trial Court. He filed an application before the trial Judge under Section 9 of the Act, inter alia on the allegations that the non-applicant No. 1 is the firm, whereas other non-applicants i.e. 2 to 6 are its partners. It is alleged that the applicant (respondent herein) had done certain construction work for the non-applicant firm and for the work that he did, he has to recover a sum of Rs. 28163.88 paisa from the non-applicants. It was alleged that, despite sending notices and reminders the non-applicants did not pay any need to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Bisesar Vs. Govind Oil Mill and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ130
A.K. Mishra, J.1. Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 1994 has been filed against the order dated 10.1.1994 passed in Case No. 8 of 1990 by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. A sum of Rs. 10,500 was ordered to be paid to Bisesar, or else the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum would be recoverable, over the said amount. Misc. Appeal No. 211 of 1994 has been filed by Bisesar on the ground that penalty and interest ought to have been ordered to be paid as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Bisesar, who is appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 211 of 1994, had filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Deceased Dasru, the father of appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 211 of 1994 was working as a coolie in Govind Oil Mill, Rajnandgaon. On 10.10.1979 in the night hours while deceased Dasru was on duty in the said oil mill, he died an accidental death. At the time of accident, d...
Tag this Judgment!Mahila Phoolwati and ors. Vs. Gopal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-2000
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC642
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the 'Act', for enhancement of the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in a Claim Case No. 88/1994, decided on 21st of August, 1995.2. It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on 8.10.1994 at 8 O'clock (morning), at Agra-Bombay Road, while the deceased Amarlal was going on the road and when he reached near Modern Bread Factory, at that time, a Metador bearing Registration No. CIG 4907, driven by the respondent No. 2 Gabbarsingh rashly and negligently came and hit Amarlal as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries; he was admitted in the hospital immediately where he died during treatment, due to injuries sustained in accident. It is further not in dispute that the aforesaid offending vehicle is owned by respondent No. 1-Gopal and insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.14. Even otherwise, the report of the accident wa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Gupta and Another Vs. Smt. Ramraji and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT161
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 23-1-1999 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1999.2. The appellants have been restrained from making constructions or interfering with the possession of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 over the land in dispute. It may be made clear at the outset that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 arc the plaintiffs, and there are other defendants besides both the appellants-defendants in the suit, but they have not been made parties to this appeal as no relief was claimed against the rest of the defendants, in this appeal.3. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the daughters of Ram Swayambar Mishra, who was the owner of southern portion of land bearing Khasra No. 1567, area 2.16 acres and Khasra No. 1586, area 0.65 acres, situate at village Lalgaon, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that after death of their fathe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »