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.
Smt. Vimla Devi and anr. Vs. Bunkar Sahakari Samiti Maryadit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT214
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants.2. Perused the record.3. The defendants/tenants-appellants feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for their eviction from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation which has been affirmed by the first Appellate Court.4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed on 20-6-1984. In Paragraph 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff had come up with the clear cut allegation that a piece of land having an area of 10 bighas had been allotted to the plaintiff which consisted of portions of survey plot No. 419 and survey plot No. 826. On the aforesaid land which had been allotted by the State Government to the plaintiff, several residential quarters had been constructed; out of which quarter No. 4 had been let out to Ram Kinkar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The tenancy which had been granted to Ram Kinkar had devolved upon h...
State of M.P. and anr. Vs. S.S. Bhadauria and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT263
ORDER1. Heard.This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-8-98 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 777/98. The respondents had filed this Original Application, which came up for hearing on 24-8-1998. On behalf of the State Shri P.D. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer had appeared and reply was not filed by him. The Tribunal has specifically noted that reply has not been filed. There is no use to give more time to the respondents to file reply, as the facts of this case are not in dispute. The Tribunal, therefore, in view of this statement proceeded to decide the matter and held that before initiating enquiry after the retirement of the applicant, prior sanction of the Governor had not been taken. The order initiating departmental proceedings against respondent-S.S. Bhadoriya was quashed. The Tribunal, however, in the impugned order gave liberty to the State to initiate such enquiry afresh after removing the infirmities.2. Thereafter, the State fil...
S.C. Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT384; 2001(2)MPLJ155
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. This petition is directed against the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur dated June 25, 1999, passed in O.A. No. 1 of 1999.2. The petitioner is working as a Tailor with Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur owned by respondent No. 1 of which respondent No. 2 is the General Manager.3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in his service record. His correct date of birth is 18-5-1943 but it has been wrongly recorded as 17-8-1940. He moved an application for correction of the service record and also filed representations after representations but no action was taken. Consequently, the Central Administrative Tribunal was approached which has rejected the claim by the impugned order.4. Learned counsel for parties were heard. Record perused.5. Shri Khalid Fakhruddin submits that Tribunal's Order is liable to be quashed since it did not take into consideration positive ev...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT332
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the non-applicant/petitioner has called in question the pregnability of the order dt. 2-2-2000 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panna in Claim Case No. 1/99.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is the insurer of Commander Jeep No. MP-16-A/4539 which was registered and insured as a private car and insurance policy covered the period from 3-12-97 to 2-12-98. The non-applicant is the owner of the said jeep and it was being plied as a taxi on 28-8-98 when it met an accident. The survey was conducted by the petitioner-company. The non-applicant filled up the claim form in respect of loss caused to the vehicle and demanded indemnification for loss suffered by him because of the damage caused to the vehicle. The insurance company after appreciating the claim of the non-applicant communicated...
S. Faisal Nabi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1598; II(2001)DMC473; 2001(1)MPHT54
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3076/2000 (S. Akhlaq Nabi and another v. State of M.P.).2. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23-2-2000 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 38/2000 arising out the order dated 4-12-99 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 4801/99 framing charge under Section 498A, IPC against the petitioners in both the petitions.3. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:The complainant Smt. Mishail was married to S. Faisal Nabi, tbe petitioner in the present Misc. Cr. Case No. 3030/2000. The petitioners in the connected Misc. Cr. Case No. 3076/2000, S. Akhlaq Nabi and Smt. QamarJahan Nabi are parents of S. Faisal Nabi. The marriage ceremony was performed in accordance with the Muslim rites at Bhopal. S. Faisal ...
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ734MP
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Damoh, has challenged the Award dated October 13, 1998 (Annexure -P12) passed by the Labour Court, Sagar in Case No. 22/95 I. D. R., by which the said Court has directed reinstatement of the Respondent No. 2 in service and payment to him of the pay scale of the post from which he was terminated. On said termination having been challenged by the Respondent No. 2, dispute was referred to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of the Respondent No. 2 was legal and justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled and what direction needed to be issued to the employer. The case of the Respondent was that he was a workman in the establishment of the petitioner and while he was working continuously from September 23, 1992, his services were terminated by the Secretary of the petitioner Samiti by order dated August 24, 1993 without holding any enquiry and without payment of any retrenchment compensati...
Jagdish and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT206
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court whereunder allowing the appeal of the defendants, the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the judgment-debtor/defendant seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against him filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was allowed and the suit was restored to its original number and directed to be heard and decided in accordance with the law, the decree-holders/applicants have now approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. praying for the setting aside of the order passed by the first Appellate Court and the restoration of the order passed by the trial Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants.3. In spite of the service of the notices, none had appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtors/respondents in opposition to this revision.4. Perused the record.5. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for t...
M.P. All India Tourist Permit Owners Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT15
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This order shall also decide the bunch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. : 2591/2000 (Raj Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2603/2000 (Firoz Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2639/2000 (Kanker Roadways and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2674/2000 (Damodar Prasad Asati v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2728/2000 (Smt. Manju Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2729/2000 (Hardeo Motor Transport Company v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2730/2000 (Kailash Narayan Rai and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2741/2000 (Mahendra Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2792/2000 (Ajinkya Air Bus Service v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2846/2000 (Gajraj Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2858/2000 (Smt. Sushila v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2869/2000 (Amrik Singh Sidhu v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2870/2000 (Sanjay Kumar Chourasia v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2945/2000 (Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2988/2000 (Jaiprakash Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors.)...
Jitendra Singh Flora Vs. Ravikant Talwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)767; 2001(1)MPHT130
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 25-10-1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 814/99.2. The non-applicant Ravikant Talwar filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth 'the Act'). The non-applicant alleged in his complaint that he is the holder of power of attorney of one Shri Shashikant Talwar. The applicant and the complainant entered into two agreements dated 8-5-1990 and 10-5-1992, whereby the applicant was required to construct building No. 183, A.P.R. Colony, Katanga, Jabalpur. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreements, it is alleged that the non-applicant advanced Rs. 2,70,000/- to the applicant. It was agreed that the work of construction of above mentioned house shall be over by 30-8-1992. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant was not able to deliver the completed building by 30-8-1992 and, therefore, the non-applicant agreed to...
Abhay Kumar Kothari Vs. Arun Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)MPHT249
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant/petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 25-11-99 passed in Civil Suit No. 47-A/95 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara.2. The facts as have been undraped are that the non- applicant filed the aforesaid suit for Specific Performance of Contract averring that the defendant had executed an agreement dated 8-10-94 for sale of a house for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in pursuance of the terms of the agreement had taken Rs. 60,000/- . It is further set-forth in the plaint that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the defendant was required to execute the sale-deed by 31-10-95 and the registration fee was to be borne by the plaintiff and the possession was to be handed over at the time of sale. Though in the month of April, 1995 the plaintiff approached ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »