Madhya Pradesh Court February 2000 Judgments
Ghanshyamdas Vyas and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT22; 2000(2)MPLJ571
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1.Both the writ petitions have been directed to be heard together. Facts emanating from the pleading of W.P. No. 5462/99 are being narrated hereinafter for disposal of both the writ petitions.1-a. Petitioner applied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of an area measuring 44.82 hectares in village Sendmuda and Motrapara on 26-7-1998. He further filed application for grant of prospecting licence on 11-7-1989 for an area measuring 45.17 hectares in village Latapara. Third application filed by the petitioner for grant for prospecting licence over an area of 95.954 hectares at village Jangra was on 24-9-1990. These villages are in the district of Raipur. Aforesaid applications of the petitioner suffered deemed rejection, as the matter was not decided within the prescribed period and aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred revision before the Central Government underRule 54 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960. The revisional authority set aside the deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. the Executive Engineer, Public Health ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT498
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. As the factual matrix and questions of law are common this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 60/2000 herein are adumbrated.2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the Public Health Engineering Department required services of certain Pump Operators and accordingly a requisition was sent to the Project Commandant. In the process of selection the petitioner was found suitable for appointment against the vacant sanctioned post of a Pump Operator. He joined the post in Sub-Division No. 29 which was managed and controlled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Department, Ambikapur, the respondent No. 2 herein. While he was performing his duties there was no complaint whatsoever, against him. However, his services were orally terminated with effect from 30-4-1992. Before termination of his services no opportunity of hearing was afford...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Istayak Ahmad and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT166
ORDERS.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Labour Court whereunder while allowing in part the application filed by the respondent workman under Section 13 of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, holding that the undertaking of the petitioner wherein he was employed fell within the purview of the Industrial Standing Orders Act, 1961, a direction had issued requiring the employer to comply with the standing order in the case of the within 90 days, the employer has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the said order including the directions.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel, representing the respondent-workman and have carefully perused the record.3. The facts, in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition, lie in a narrow compass : The respondent-workman had filed an application under Section 13 of the M.P. Industr...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and anr. Vs. Smt. Chaturiya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT416; 2000(3)MPLJ204
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Civil Suit No. 52-A of 1980 impleading defendants/petitioners herein for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the land, details whereof have been given in the plaint. Said suit was decreed by the trial Court purportedly on the basis of compromise entered between the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. After passing of the compromise decree plaintiff No. 1 filed application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for setting aside the compromise decree on the allegation that the same is unlawful. By the impugned order dated 17-10-1989 the trial Court held that the application filed by plaintiff No. 1 to set aside the compromise decree under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable, and fixed the case for recording of evidence. Defendants aggrieved by the same preferred revision and the revisional Court by order dated 11-2-1991 dismissed the revision application.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwari Paliya and anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ850
S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 14.7.1994 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 6 of 1987. The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case filed on behalf of deceased Rajendra Paliya on the ground that the claim case automatically abated after expiry of 90 days of the death of Rajendra Paliya. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act (which should have been filed under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure). It was held that there is no question of substitution of legal representatives of deceased Rajendra Paliya on record as cause of action does not survive to legal representatives of the deceased. This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Rajendra Paliya, under Order 43, Rule 1 (k) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pole Chand Vs. Hukum Chand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP8
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 30-9-98 passed by ADJ Khairagarh whereby the trial Court has held that promissory note in question was admissible in evidence and stamps were properly cancelled. 2. Promissory note in question was with respect to the amount of Rs. 60,000/- which was payable on demand and it was executed on 2-8-94 allegedly by the defendant/petitioner. In the promissory note there were 10 stamps, each of 20 paisa, total worth being Rs. 2/-. 3. An objection was raised by the defendant by filing an application under Section 151 of the C. P. C. that stamps affixed on the promissory note were not cancelled as required under Section 12 of the Indian Stamps Act. It is also alleged that only one stamp was having the signature and on three other stamps one line was drawn. The line so drawn did not indicate the intention whether it was to cancel those stamps or otherwise. Hence the promissory note was not admis...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Bhadoriya and ors. Vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary Educatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP170
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The factual matrix and the question of law involved being similar this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order. Ordinarily the facts of one of the case would have been adumbrated but to depict the clear picture a short narration of facts of each case is given below.2. In Writ Petition No. 4820 of 1999 the petitioners as regular students of Narendra Singh Gaur Higher Secondary School Kormar appeared in Class XIIth examination for the year 1998-99 from the examination centre Government Higher Secondary School Chandera in the District of Tikamgarh. The Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh declared the result of Class XIIth examination for the academic session 1998-99 in the month of June, 1999 and the petitioner received their respective mark-sheets on 9-8-1999 as a result of which they could not appear in the supplementary examination meant for class XIIth. After receipt of mark-sheet the petitioners sent their r...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.P. Sharma Vs. Dr. K.L. Mishra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT206
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-2-1997 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, in O.A. No. 752/95.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No. 1 Dr. K.L. Mishra who was at the relevant time Lecturer in the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Gwalior, filed an application being O.A No. 752/95 on 20-7-1995 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior (for short the 'Tribunal') challenging the Gradation List of 1981 and onwards in which he was placed below the petitioner herein, i.e. Dr. K.P. Sharma and praying that the respondents No. 2 and 3 herein be directed to place the applicant/respondent No. 1 above respondents No. 3 to 6 before the Tribunal in the Gradation lists published by making necessary corrections therein and to give all consequential and ancillary benefits to the applicant. On notice being issued, the State/respondents No....
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, GramIn Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Maryadit and Two ors. Vs. R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT173
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (henceforth 'the Act'). The Taxing Officer was of the opinion that the appellant was liable to pay court fees at the rate of Rs. 1,430/- on the valuation of Rs. 12,170/- and not at the rate of Rs. 1,260/- as would be leviable after commencement of Amendment Act No. 12 of 1997, dated 1-4-1997. This Amendment Act of 1997 has modified the Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Act, reducing the amount of court fees payable on valuation of Rs. 12,170/- to Rs. 1,260/-. The appellants would be liable to pay Rs. 1,430/- on the same amount if the amended Article 1-A of Schedule I aforesaid was not applied to the case at hand. The order passed in this reference shall also govern the question of payment of court fees in the connected First Appeal Nos. 464/98, 465/98 and 467/98, as well as the appeals wherever the question of payment of court fees answered by this reference is involved.2. Ordinarily, the view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sirmul Vs. Smt. Annapurna Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP10; 2001(2)MPLJ339
Arun Mishra, J.1. Plaintiff/appellant's suit for specific performance of contract of sale dt. 4-1-92 has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the execution of agreement has not been proved. The suit was dismissed with cost. It was held that while getting two sale-deeds executed on 4-1-92 on the stamp in question signature of defendant Annapurna Devi was obtained and subsequently the agreement has been typed over it. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, present appeal has been filed.2. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant agreed to sell agricultural land of one acre comprised in Survey No. 852/1 on 4-1-92 for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/-. An amount of Rs. 80,000/- was paid on 4-1-92 as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed by 10th April 1992, on receiving a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the remaining amount was agreed to be paid before the registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff requested the defendant to re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »