Madhya Pradesh Court February 2000 Judgments
Leeladhar Balmukund JaIn Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ280MP; 2000(2)MPHT403; 2000(1)MPLJ622
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate representing respondent No. 1.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioner claims to have been engaged by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti/respondent No. 3 to perform the duties of Udghoshak (Announcer) on daily wage basis and working as such since April 17, 1989. Vide an order dated January 12, 2000, implementing the decision of the State Government, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the employer, dispensed with the services of all those employees who had been engaged on daily wage basis subsequent to December 31, 1988. The petitioner's services were also dispensed with under the aforesaid order.4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order dated January 12, 2000. He has further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to classify him as a p...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Singh Tomar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1344MP; 2000(3)MPHT256; 2000(2)MPLJ249
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Shri Arun Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri K. N. Gupta, Government Advocate representing the respondent No. I/State on advance notice.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition praying for a direction requiring the respondents to continue in service of the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the post of Time Keeper and prohibiting them not to terminate his services otherwise than in accordance with law. He has further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to absorb him in a permanent post according to the rules applicable to the Municipalities and for quashing of the order dated December 31, 1999 issued by the State Government. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to release his salary for the month of December 1999 and onwards.'4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Bansal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC577
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. read with Section 401 and Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. is against the order dated 20.8.1998, passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior whereby the bail granted to non-applicant No. 2, vide the impugned order, challenged here in this petition.2. It was submitted that the non -applicant No. 2 Mahavir Prasad Goyal alongwith his wife Smt. Kusum, daughter Ku. Preeti and two sons namely Pankaj and Manoj (husband of the deceased) were being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of I.P.C.3. In the case in hand, initially the applications for grant of an anticipatory bail were moved under Section 438, Cr. P.C. on behalf of the, wife of the non-applicant No. 2 and their daughter Ku. Preeti, being registered as Cri. Misc. C. No. 3083/96, Smt. Kusum Goyal v. State of M.P., and Cri. Misc. C No. 3140/96, Ku. Preeti v. State of M.P. The aforesaid two applications were rejected by the Court below vide order dated 5....
Tag this Judgment!Stresscrete Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC424; 2000(119)ELT542(MP)
N.K. Jain, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal by respondent No. 3 (Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal) of his claim for Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on inserts used in the manufacture of sleepers supplied by the petitioner to the railways during 1-3-1987 to 4-11-1988. The respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 13-2-1991 (Annexure F) has refused the claim solely on the ground that the claim for Modvat credit was made belatedly.2. It is, however, explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was occasioned on account of late handing-over of gate passes by the railways. The said passes were received on 31-10-1990 and the claim was made soon thereafter. He submits that respondent No. 3 while rejecting his claim ought to have taken into consideration the circumstances under which the delay was occasioned. It is further submitted that the question regarding assessable value should have also been taken into consideration by respondent No. 3.3...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Rao and anr. Vs. M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT8
ORDERDeepak Verma, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the orders of promotion of respondents No. 2 and 3 to the post of General Manager (Estate & Construction) of respondent No. 1 M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd., alleging that the seniority of the petitioners has been ignored, while promoting these respondents.2. Factual matrix lies as under:Petitioner No. 1 had joined, Udyog Nigam of respondent No. 1, as supervisor in the year 1962, whereas petitioner No. 2 had joined the same as surveyor in 1964. On account of their continuous service with respondent No. 1 Udyog Nigam, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were promoted to the posts of Managers (E/C) on 21-1-76 and 24-1-76 respectively. Even today they continue to hold the same posts. Seniority List (combined) of the Managers was published on 31-8-91. According to the petitioners in the said list, petitioner No. 1 was shown at S. No. 2, petitioner No. 2 was shown at S. No. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rashida Begum Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT181; 2000(2)MPLJ242
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed by the mother of the detenue Mohd. Abid, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).2. The facts as laid out in the present petition in brief are that the detenue Mohd. Abid is a tailor by profession and is not a habitual criminal. He has been involved in false cases. A petty criminal case in the year 1995, was registered against him, by Police Mohghat Road, Khandwa, for offences under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The detenue was acquitted in the said trial. The order of detention dated 18-5-1999 (Annx. P-1) was issued by District Magistrate, East Nimar, Khandwa under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 'Act'.3. The District Magistrate in compliance of Section 8 of the 'Act' intimated the detenue of the grounds of his detention as per Annx. P-4. In para 2 of Annx. P-4 it has been stated that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Khilawan Verma Vs. Rikhiram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)MPHT109
D.P.S. Chauhan, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-9-99 passed in Claim Case No. 97/97 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur rejecting the claim petition on the ground that in claim cases provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable.2. Heard learned counsel Shri H.S. Patel.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in the claim cases and the fact that earlier the appellant withdrew claim petition was of no consequence and he was entitled to maintain a fresh claim case.4. The Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order. According to Rule 240 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Rules, 1994, which is as extracted below :^^240- nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk tkp djus esa viuk;htkus okyh izf;k & flfoy izf;k lafgrk 1908 ds dfri; mica/kksa dhiz;qf bl vf/kfu;e ;k bu fu;eksa esa vU;Fkk vfHkO; :...
Tag this Judgment!Rashida Begum Vs. the State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3048
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed by the mother of the detenu Mohd. Abid, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).2. The facts as laid out in the present petition in brief are, that the detenu Mohd. Abid is a tailor by profession and is not a habitual criminal. He has been involved in false cases. A petty criminal case in the year 1995, was registered against him, by Police Moghat Road, Khandwa, for offences under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu was acquitted in the said trial. The order of detention dated 18-5-1999 (Annexure P/1) was issued by District Magistrate, East Nimar, Khandwa under Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the 'Act'.3. The District Magistrate in compliance of Section 8 of the 'Act' intimated the detenu of the grounds of his detention as per Annex. P/4. In para 2 of annex. P/4 it has been stated that the deten...
Tag this Judgment!Akhtar Ali Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000MP257; 2000(2)MPHT2; 2000(1)MPLJ551
S.P. Srivastava, J. Heard Shri A. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate representing the respondents/State who has put in appearance on advance notice.Perused the writ petition.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector/appellate authority, Krishi Upaj Mandi Nirvachan. District Shivpuri whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharsadhak Samiti Tathas Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974, which was directed against the rejection of his nomination paper by the election authority dated 21-4-1999 has been dismissed holding that the said appeal was not maintainable on the ground that the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.2. It may be noticed that the appeal had been filed on 2-2-2000 whereas the order rejecting the nomination paper in question had been passed on 21-4-1999.3. The petitioner has ass...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC628
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh have been convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each. Appellant Suresh has also been -convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh, Meera Jain, and Pinki have been convicted under Section 324/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each.2. Sunita (P.W. 1) was married to accused Suresh Jain on 22.2.1995. The couple lived happily for about four months at Raipur. There was unhappihess in the next six months and Sunita (P.W. 1) left her matrimonial home with her father on 30.11.1995 and came back to her parental abode in Bhilai. Accused Ramkishan and Ramesh are elder brothers of Suresh. Accused Meera Jain is wife of accused Ramkishan and accused Pinki is his daughter.3. The prosecution case is that after four months of the marriage the accused persons sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »