Madhya Pradesh Court March 2000 Judgments
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Asha W/O. Ghanshyam Madan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ299; [2000(86)FLR943]; (2001)IIILLJ102MP; 2000(4)MPHT142; 2000(2)MPLJ565
ORDERV.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated March 17, 1999 in Case No. 45/WCA/SS(F), whereby the application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) read with Rule 12 of Workmen's Compensation (M.P.) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short), was dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner' for short), stating that the applicant the Principal should recover the amount of compensation etc., paid by it to the claimant, from the contractor by pursuing his remedy in the civil Court.2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal stated in brief are that the appellant was the 'principal' while respondent No. 5 was his 'contractor' within the meaning of Section 12 of the 'Act'. The deceased Ghanshyam Madan was engaged by contractor the respondent No. 5. Ghanshyam Madan sustained fatal injuries on Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Dravid and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR472]; (2000)IILLJ1511MP
Fakhruddev and N.G. Karambelkar, JJ. 1. These four Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against a common order dated November 2, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1364/1997, 1360/1997, 1270/1997 and 1267/1997, out of which these appeals arise, and shall be disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants/petitioners who were workmen filed the aforesaid petitions for a direction that the respondents shall continue them in service and shall regularise them in service on the ground that their termination from service is illegal. It is contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Return was filed in W.P. No. 1358/1997 and it was adopted by the counsel for the respondents in other cases also. The learned writ Court considered the entire material on record in great detail in paras 5 to 11. In para 9 the learned single Judge while dealing with the provisions of Section 25F...
Tag this Judgment!Pandey and Company Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT356
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner/applicant has called in question the defensibility of the Order dated 12-2-99 whereby the learned District Judge, Jabalpur has refused to entertain an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts as have been undraped are that the applicant was awarded certain works by the non-applicants and the petitioner/Firm executed some extra work which was in the knowledge of the staff of the non-applicants. The petitioner submitted the final bill but the non-applicants failed to pay any amount for the extra work done by the applicant. The applicant raised an objection and sent a letter dated 25-8-94 but his letter was not paid heed to. The applicant served a notice on 19-12-96 through his counsel but the non-applicant maintained sphinx...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwariya Bai Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ77; 2000(3)MPLJ501
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This group of 12 appeals (M.A. No. 156 of 1999: Kunwariya Bai v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 168 of 1999: Jugan Bai v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 169 of 1999: Mehtaruram Sahu v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 170 of 1999: Brij Bai v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 182 of 1999: Gwaldas Sahu v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 183 of 1999: Rukmani Bai v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 207 of 1999: Noharlal v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 208 of 1999: Ratanlal Devangan v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 209 of 1999: Deen Dayal Yadav v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 210 of 1999: Sukhram Sahu v. Mohan Lal; M.A. No. 220 of 1999: Biravan Bai v. Mohan Lal; and M.A. No. 237 of 1999: Manra-khan v. Mohan Lal) is proposed to be decided by this common order, since all of them arise out of the same accident.2. The claimants and some other persons had gone to Abhanpur to take part in the martyr day rally in Matador with registration No. MP 24-C-0267. After function, all the claimants went to Mothipar. The respondent No. 1, Mohan Lal, was driving the vehicle rashly and ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajeshwari and ors. Vs. Balchand JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP179; 2001(5)MPHT227
Arun Mishra, J.1. The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Balchand Jain for declaration of title, partition and consequential relief to the extent of 1/3rd share of the disputed house. Another 1/3rd share was declared to be in ownership of respondent No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Jain. RespondentNo. 3 who was also one of the defendants before the trial Court was declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share with respect to the disputed house and plot in question. The present defendants-appellants are wife and sons of respondent No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Jain who has been declared owner of 1/3rd share by the trial Court.2. The factual matrix indicates that the plaintiff filed a suit against two of his sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar, and also Smt. Rajeshwari wife of Rajendra Kumar and Ritesh Kumar and Tarun Kumar both sons of Rajendra Kumar, alleging that plaintiff Balchand and two of his sons Rajendra and Devendra had purchased a dilapidated house situated at...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Shukla Vs. Member Judge, State Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR909]; (2001)IIILLJ1048MP
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-P/12 dated January 17, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 82/99/MPIR filed by the Respondent No. 3 and Cross Appeal No. 170/99/MPIR filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the termination of his service before the Labour Court, Sagar and the Labour Court by its order dated February 27, 1999 had directed his reinstatement but without back wages. Against the said order of the Labour Court, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had preferred an appeal in which Cross Appeal for claiming back wages was also filed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court by the said impugned order Annexure-P/12, directed remand of the case to the Labour Court for decision afresh after holding that the domestic enquiry was illegal. Since the case was remanded for decision afresh, the Cross Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Against the said judgment, the Respondent No. 4 has also filed a pet...
Tag this Judgment!South Eastern Coal Fields Vs. Sukrita Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR377]; (2000)IILLJ1219MP
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the award dated May 26, 1999 in Case No. 19/W.C.A.92 (F) by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Labour Court, Bilaspur, whereby an award of Rs. 62,588 on account of death of Narayan Das, the workman of the appellant has been granted.2. The respondents, the Legal representatives of the deceased workman filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation on his death arising out of and during the course of employment with the appellant. The averments of respondents/ claimants were that while returning from duty on January 22, 1991 at about 7 p.m. the deceased met with an accident near the barrier of their village Deepika and died on account of injuries sustained. 3. The appellant/employer denied that the accident occurred while the said workman was returning from his duty. The appellant denied that he was liable for payment of compensation.4. Learned counsel for appellant has urg...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sudhakar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT174
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited is directed against the award dated 29-11-1999 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur in Claim Case No. 56 of 1997.2. The claimant (respondent No. 1) is an employee of Bahadurpur Cotton Mill. He was earning Rs. 3000.00 per month. On 4-5-1997, he was along with his wife going to Shahpur in a tempo bearing No. M.P./12/6177. Truck bearing No. M.P./9/T/715 owned by the respondent No. 3 and driven by him, coming in excessive speed hit the tempo. The claimant sustained injuries in right shoulder and his left hand was fractured. The matter was reported to the police.3. A claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondents 2 and 3. It was alleged that due to the accident, the left hand of the claimant became disabled; therefore, he was entitled to compensation in the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Satynarayan Vs. Vinetelar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT373
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. He is heard on admission.2. He submitted that the previous written statement filed by the petitioner was scanty and, therefore, for elaborating the plea, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement in view of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC. However, the Court rejected it and therefore, this petitioner has been left with no way but to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction,3. Shri Jain pointed out the previous written statement as well as the proposed amendment.4. After perusing the order, the proposed amendment has been considered, so also the previous written statement has been considered. The proposed amendment runs into pages. There are five pages to said application and out of it, atleast four and half pages are embodying the amendment which is sought to be annexed to previous written statement. In comparison to that, the written statement runs into three pages. None can have the debate with the preposition that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. Temalgdol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT469
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Vide these I.As. a prayer has been made for condoning the delay, setting aside the abatement and bringing the L.Rs. of sole appellant-deceased on record. Shri Garg prayed for time to file the reply to these applications. Smt. Sharma vehemently opposed it by submitting that on two occasions the time has been sought by the counsel for respondents and even before this Court on 24-1-2000 time was sought. She pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondents to file reply to these applications. However, the replies have not been submitted. Shri Garg submitted that he wants to contact the concerned clients and, therefore, he reiterated the prayer for adjournment and in the alternative submitted that the applications be dismissed because the process of making a prayer for condonation of delay setting aside the abatement and bringing the L.Rs. of deceased sole appellant on record has been very much delayed. He pointed out that delay is of five yea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »