Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Dogar Tools Private Limited and ors. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2002MP53; 2001(4)MPHT315; 2002(4)MPLJ314
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners/appellants filed writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing communication dated 10-4-2000 (Annexure P-30) whereby the petitioners have been informed that their mortgaged assets shall be sold for recovery of outstanding dues in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent M.P. Financial Corporation.2. The petitioners were advanced a term loan of Rs. 28.45 lacs in the year 1980. The amount was disbursed in between the period 1981 to 1983. The M.P. Financial Corporation took possession of the mortgaged assets on 7-4-2000 in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Act. The dues against the petitioners as on 1-1-2000, according to the M.P. Financial Corporation, is Rs. 2.40 crores, inclusive of interest. The sale of the mortgaged assets was advertised in daily news papers Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat on 4-6-2000. Th...
Shivkumar Vs. Padum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT186
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. The Civil Appeal No. 48-A/99 was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that it was barred by time. It is not in dispute that the appellant-plaintiff did not file any application for condonation of delay. The Court below had no option but to dismiss the civil appeal as the Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. It is clear from the plain language of Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. Admittedly, this application was not filed. It is also very clear that this provision was added by CPC (Amend.) Act, 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977. It is apparent from the language of Rule 3-A of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the question of limitation has to be deci...
Papoo @ Mohammad Zalil and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT83
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.2. The brief relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are thus : Police Chanderi filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411, IPC, against nine persons, out of whom the petitioners and one Suresh Kumar were shown as absconding. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28-7-99 took cognizance of the case and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., with the allegation that factually there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect them with the crimes in question, and the only evidence lurking in the charge-sheet against them is contained in a confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by one of...
Suresh Kumar Jatav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT507
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J.1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 16th May, 2000 in O.A. No. 289 of 1999. The Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Revising Authority to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the petition indicates that the petitioner was working as Goods Driver in the Railways. He was charge-sheeted with respect to a matter pertaining to an accident. Charge-sheet was issued on 30th October, 1998. On 4-1-1999 without conducting any enquiry punishment of reversion of the applicant from the post of Goods Driver to that of Shunter was imposed. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 20th April, 1999 why punishment imposed should not be enhanced by removing the petitioner from service. It was contended by the petitioner that as a matter of f...
Pappu Alias Mohammad Zalil and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ875
ORDERMaithli Sharan, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.2. The brief relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are thus: Police Chanderi filed a charge sheet in the Court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457, 380, and 411, I.P.C. against nine persons, out of whom the petitioners and one Suresh Kumar were shown as absconding. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28-7-99 took cognizance of the case and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction Urder Section 482, Cr.P.C, with the allegation that factually there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect them with the crimes in question, and the only evidence lurking in the charge-sheet against them is contained in a confessional statement Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by one of...
Makhan Singh Vs. Mankunwar Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: II(2002)ACC207
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This appeal is preferred under Section 153 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of offending vehicle against an award passed by 1st A.M.A.C.T., Shahjapur in Claim Case No. 54/99, decided on 20.1.2000. The issue involved in this appeal is short and legal namely, whether Tribunal was justified in exonerating the Insurance Companies from the liability to pay the interim compensation which is payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Facts are these:2. On 28.1.1999, deceased Laxman while travelling in Tractor-trolley/bearing No. MP-13-KA-6341 and Trolley attached to it bearing No. MP-13-KA-1519 met with an accident and died. This led to filing of claim petition by the legal representatives of deceased Laxman claiming compensation under various heads. In substance the allegations are that due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trolley the deceased Laxman died but for no fault of him. It is alleged that at the relevant time, the offending Tractor ...
Anand Kumar Dubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ371MP; 2000(4)MPHT431; 2000(3)MPLJ461
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Anand Kumar Dubey was a permanent ladderman in the Central Railway Loco Shed, Katni Junction. He was removed from service from December 12, 1986 for remaining absent from service for about 41 days during 1986. Domestic enquiry was held. However, the claim of the appellant that his absence was due to sickness and death of his mother was not accepted and he was removed from service. He approached his union and the Railway Ministers from time to time and was asked to wait for favourable disposal of his case, but nothing was done. These efforts continued till 1997 and when it was found that despite assurances, Officials and Railway Ministers were not going to do anything, the appellant was compelled to raise industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the railway management before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Jabalpur, for conciliation on July 21, 1998.2. Further case of the appellant is that therailway manag...
Omprakash Satyapal Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001MP199; 2001(5)MPHT367
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Respondent Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board invited tender for purchase of scrap materials, Lot No. 70 contained 65 M.T. of Pulverizer M.S. Pipe and Bent scrap, Lot No. 76 contained 160 M.T. of Boiler Tube Steel Scrap and Lot No. 117 (1) contained 200 M.T. of Economizer Tube Coil Steel scrap. Petitioner as also respondent No. 3 submitted its tender for Lot No. 117 (1). Petitioner had also submitted tender for Lots No. 70 and 76. Tender of respondent No. 3 has been accepted by telegram dated 7-2-2000. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prays for quashing of the sale order in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of Lots No. 70, 76 and 117 (1).2. It is the assertion of the petitioner that along with its tender petitioner has not deposited 5% of its offered value towards earnest money. In reply to the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner, respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated...
M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Bhopal Vs. Union ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT32
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 19-4-1995 in Case No. TA/1045/90 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal whereby the claim of the appellant/claimant was dismissed holding it to be time-barred.2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the claimant/appellant initially filed a petition under Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore. The claim laid was for damages due to non-delivery of the consignment of rice booked by the appellant with the respondent Railway Administration.3. The respondent entered appearance in the said case and raised an objection that the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.4. The Deputy Registrar rejected the objection as above. However, Civil Revision No. 71/1978 was preferred by the respondent herein, before this Court. The said revision was allowed. It was held therein that the above dispute betwe...
Jayant Vitamins Ltd. and anr. Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR47]; (2001)IIILLJ1190MP
J.G. Chitre, J.Shri Shekhar Bhargava submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the factory has not been closed by the petitioners. However, the Receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court for the purpose of recovering the dues of four Banks viz. State Bank of India, Andhra Bank, Bank of Baroda and Central Bank of India, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner Labour, M.P. Indore was in error of law in issuing RRC dated January 19, 1998 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,52,33,464.92 Ps. He pointed out the definition of 'closure' indicated by provisions of Section 2(cc) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as he pointed out the provisions of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P. Act' for convenience) by pointing out the provisions of M.P. Act, more particularly Section 110 which provides that except Chapters V-A, V-B and V-C, and the other provisions with respect to lay-off, retrenchment, compensation, special provisions relating to lay-off, re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »