Madhya Pradesh Court July 2000 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.
Ambuja Cement Easter Ltd. and Another Vs. Industrial Court Bench, Raip ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1254MP; 2001(2)MPHT3
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The petitioner-employer has filed W.P. No. 3007 of 1999 against the order dated 14-5-1999 (Annexure P-II) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Appeal No. 120/MPIR/98 by which the Industrial Court has directed reinstatement of second respondent-Niranjan Lal Yadav in service. Therespondent No. 2 has filed petition W.P. No. 4984 of 1999 challenging the very order in so far as the Industrial Court has declined to award back wages.2. The second respondent (employee) had filed an application before the Labour Court, Raipur under the provisions of Section 31 (3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging termination of his service by the petitioner. According to the case set up by the said respondent, he had been appointed as an Electrician on 27-7-1987 and while he was rendering service on the said post, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 7-5-1991 alleging that he, on 3-5-1991 at about 6.30 p.m., along with hi...
Punpratap Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT398; 2000(3)MPLJ632
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioners have by this petition challenged the Order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated November 2, 1998 holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.2. The petitioners are Home Guard Sainiks. They claim that they are holders of civil post under the State; therefore, the State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by them. The submission is rested on the ground that their appointment is made under statutory rules formulated by the State Government. There existed master and servant relationship between Home Guards and the State which can deal with them from time to time as per provisions of law. The contention of the petitioners did not find favour with the Tribunal resulting in the dismissal of their application.3. Shri Syed Abdul Wakil, learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced the same submissions which were raised before the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on some decisions of Supr...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhatt and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1762; 2001(1)MPHT259
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 5-8-1999 (AnnexureP-1) passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 2/99 whereby, the objection taken by the petitioner as regards to the maintainability of the application has been overruled.2. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; under Sections 161 and 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of death of their father in a hit and run motor accident. Petitioner appeared and took objection to the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) to grant compensation in case of hit and run motor accident. Tribunal by the impugned order held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application and overruled the objection....
Gopal Singh Vs. SurajbhaIn Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT389
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal of the respondents under Sections 494 and 494/114, IPC. Special leave to appeal was granted to the complainant by order dated 8-11-1990. Respondent No. 3 Dham Singh has died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, it has abated against him.2. It is not disputed that Savita (P.W. 3) was married to accused No. 1 Surajbhan Singh on 18-2-1982. This marriage was solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. There was saptapadi before thesacred fire. Savita (P.W. 3) gave birth to a female child. Accused No, 2 Guljar Singh is father of Surajbhan Singh.3. The prosecution case is that accused Surajbhan Singh re-married Chitralekha on 19-5-1983 in village Sarangarh. According to the complainant this marriage was also solemnized in the form of Saptapadi before the sacred fire. Chitralekha is daughter of accused Nos. 4 and...
Dhyan Singh Vs. Raman Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR230]; (2002)IVLLJ611MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Claimant who claimed to be in the employment of respondent and having suffered an injury during the course of employment and arising out of an employment has felt aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition filed by him under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act by the impugned award dated August 31, 1999 in Claim Case No. 5/W.C.N.F./96 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and has come to this Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. While rejecting the claim petition, the learned Commissioner on appreciation of evidence led by parties came to a conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove that he was ever employed by the respondent or that he was at any point of time in his employment much less at a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- as alleged by the claimant. While coming to this conclusion, the learned Commissioner held that the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was in the employment of...
Gangadevi and ors. Vs. Rukmanidevi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT381; 2000(3)MPLJ606
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/tenants/appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff/landlord/respondent.2. Perused the record.3. This second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial question of law:'Whether on failure of trial Court to determine provisional rent under Section 13(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act could be passed ?'4. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered by a Full Bench in the case of Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarain (Idol), reported in 1975 JLJ 779.5. The aforesaid decision came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal and Ors. v. Radheshyam, reported in 2000(4) M.P.H.T. 218 = (2000) 4 SCC 380 and was disapproved. The Apex Court had not only disapproved the decision of this Court in t...
State Bank of Indore Vs. Munnalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT495
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of C.P. Code is by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the impugned judgment/decree, dated 19-01-1990 passed by IIIrd A.D.J., Ujjain, in C.S. No. 52-A/88. To appreciate the issue involved in suit and now in appeal, few facts need mention.2. Appellant is the plaintiff whereas respondents are the defendants.3. Appellant (plaintiff) - a Nationalised Bank, filed a suit out of which this appeal arises for the recovery of Rs. 35,222/- against the respondents (defendants) on the strength of loan advanced to the respondents. It was alleged that in lieu of security, the respondents (defendants) had executed various documents in favour of plaintiff - such as mortgaged deed, guarantee agreement, demand promissory notes etc. In effect, it was lleged that defendants did not repay the loan despite giving notices and reminders and that too after acknowledging their liability to pay and hence suit was filed claiming a money decree and in...
Ankur Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000MP310; 2000(3)MPHT427; 2000(3)MPLJ627
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. BOTH these petitions (W.P. Nos. 848/2000 and 913/2000) have been heard as connected matters as commonquestion of law, as extracted below, is involved in both these petitions : Question involved:-- 'Whether the demand by the respondent-Authorities for payment of the Institutional fee prescribed for the payment/NRI seats, in full, at the time of admission, for the entire duration of 4 1/2 years MBBS course in State owned medical colleges, is justified in law'? 2. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has created 10 payment/NRI (Non-resident Indians) seats for admission to MBBS course in each Stale owned Medical Colleges at Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Gwalior and Rewa. The State Government has framed Rules to regulate admissions on these seats entitled : 'Rules for Admission to MBBS Course in Medical Colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh to Payment and NRI Seats (for short, 'the Rules'). The Rules provide for payment of institutional fee at the rate of Rs. 1.1 lacs per an...
Kapil (Minor) Vs. Dr. Shivmangal Awasthy
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP108; 2000(4)MPHT337; 2000(3)MPLJ558
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. This Misc. appeal is by the minor plaintiff who was refused permission to sue and prosecute his suit as an indegent person. The impugned order is dated 4-12-1997, passed by learned IInd A.D.J., Dhar, in case No. 22/96. Facts in brief for the disposal of this appeal are these.2. Appellant is the plaintiff. He is minor. He filed a suit through next friend - his father Bhagwan against the respondent (defendant) claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The suit was inter alia founded on the allegations that on 21-3-1993 plaintiff - Kapil was down with fever. He went to take medicines to defendant, who was a private medical practitioner. According to plaintiff, defendant administered certain injections which adversely affected on the plaintiff. The advance reaction resulted in permanent disability in his leg as he is now unable to walk. In support, the plaintiff filed certificates of other doctors. According to plaintiff this disability was due to shere neglience...
Jayaswals Neco Limited Vs. Isher Alloy Steels Ltd. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT452; 2000(3)MPLJ216
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 3-7-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 190/98 quashing the order dated 6-7-1998 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Raipur whereby a criminal case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was registered against the respondents on the basis of a complaint.2. There was a business transaction between the parties and consequently the respondents issued a Cheque No. 2477086 dated 21-7-1997 for Rs. 10,00,000/-. When the cheque was sent to the bank, it was dishonoured as its payment was stopped by the drawer. The petitioner gave a notice as required by law and ultimately filed a criminal complaint against them which was registered as per order dated 6-7-1998 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Raipur in Criminal Case No. 464/98. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed a revision petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »