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.
Brijbasi Lime Works Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1665MP
C.K. Prasad, J.1. In both the writ petitions, common questions of facts and law arise and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. :2. Facts which are necessary for decision of the present writ petition and which are not in controversy are that the petitioners manufacture lime and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has held that petitioners' establishments are covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has directed the petitioners to deposit Provident Fund dues. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners had preferred appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal by separate orders held that petitioners' establishments are covered under the provisions of the Act In case ofBrijbasi Lime Work (W.P. No. 1252 of 2000), after holding that the establishment is covered under the provi...
Jagdish and Etc Vs. M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1296
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. In these writ petitions filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by each of the petitioners is to quash the orders of the State Government whereby prayer made by them for their release on licence under Section 6(6) of the M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules 1964, have been rejected.2. Facts lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioners are convicts and while in incarceration they filed applications for their release on licence under Rule 6 of the M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Their cases were considered by the State Probation Board consisting of only two members and on the recommendation of the Board, the State Government declined to release the petitioners on licence. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the State Probation Board which considered the petitioners' case consisted of only two members and in the meeting of the Board held on 31-3-2000, non-official m...
Mannulal Vs. Surendra Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ609
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, dated 28.9.1996 in Claim Case No. 6 of 1992.2. Claim was filed by Balaram Patel (deceased). He died during the pendency of the claim; therefore, substituted by Mannulal, son of Jagru Patel, brother of deceased Balaram Patel. It is stated that on 17.5.1992 at 10 a.m. when the deceased Dhanwarin Bai was crossing the road to throw away domestic garbage, truck No. MOR 8791, driven by driver Surendra Pal Singh, hit her resulting in serious injuries to her head, hands and feet. She died instantaneously. The deceased was 65 years old making both ends meet by earning as a labourer, however, she possessed good health. She used to earn Rs. 1,200 per month and after spending on herself, she used to spend Rs. 700 on the family. For her death, claim for Rs. 1,09,000 has been made.3. Respondents have denied taking place of the accident and lodging of report in this connection but admit pende...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›