Madhya Pradesh Court January 2001 Judgments
State of M.P. and Others Vs. Virendra Pal Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT269
ORDER1. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents. 2. Perused the record.3. The contesting parties have exchanged their affidavits. With their consent, this writ petition is heing disposed of finally at this stage.4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass.5. The respondents arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were recruited and appointed against the posts of Gram Sahayak during the period from 24-10-1988 to 5-7-1995. The Rules regulating the recruitment and appointment relating to the post of Gram Sahayak, prescribes the minimum educational qualification of having passed the Higher Secondary or its equivalent examination before a candidate could be considered for appointment on the said post. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid rules prescribing the minimum eligibility criteria regarding t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kabra Drugs Limited and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT456
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs :--'(i) a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of M.P. Excise Act and/or rules seeking to levy permit fee and/or transport fee under the provisions which have already been declared by the Supreme Court as beyond the legislative competent of the State. (ii) a writ of prohibition forebearing the respondents from giving effect to the provisions of the Act and the rules seeking to levy permit fee/transport fee. (iii) a writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from levying or collecting the excise duty in future in the garb of permit fee or transport fee. (iv) a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- and/or any other fees levied and collected as permit fee or transport fee from the petitioners which is without the authority o...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Mohanlal Hiralal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT539
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner filed a Reference-petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal with respect to a dispute arising out of the contract for construction of canal aquadect at Channel 235 on Palakmati river. The estimated cost was Rs. 37.44 lacs and the tendered cost was Rs. 52.43 lacs. The period for completion was 18 months i.e. upto 11-10-79. The petitioner claimed that an amount of Rs. 5.60 lacs be paid to him on account of the difference in amount for using black trap instead of hard metal in all the items of concrete 14000 M. A further sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs was claimed on account of the loss suffered due to abnormal reduction in quantities of cement concrete 1:3:6 in foundation and superstructure. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also claimed. Another claim was added by way of an amendment during the Pendency of the Reference-petition before the Arbitration Tribunal. The amount of final bill Rs. 81,900/- was also claimed with interest. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Kishan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT371
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant had filed a civil suit No. 91-A/92 in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Class 1st, Guna for eviction and arrears of rent against tenant respondent on the ground that he requires the suit accommodation/shop for his business i.e., for manufacturing furniture. The defendant denied the need on the ground that the plaintiff has sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession.2. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties by judgment dated 29-9-95, decreed the suit of the plaintiff against which, defendant/respondent filed a civil appeal No. 49-A/95, before the District Judge, Guna, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :--(i) Whether, the Appellate Court has committed an error of law in exceeding the jurisdiction in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court ?(ii) Whether, the plaintiff has proved his bona fide requirement of sui...
Tag this Judgment!Vastra Udyog Shramik Sangh, UjjaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR580]; 2001(4)MPHT291; 2001(3)MPLJ614
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. All of them have been heard. The petition needs to be decided at this stage finally because the petitioner has not come with clean hands.3. Shri Gajankush submitted that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 did not give the benefit of Textile Workers Rehabilitation Fund Scheme (T.W.R.F.) to the employees working in petitioner union. He submitted that the representation of petitioner which was pending before those respondents has been decided with cryptic order and the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of T.W.R.F. scheme which was brought in force since June, 1985. Shri Gajankush pointed out the observations made by the Secretary of Labour Department of State of M.P. in his order dated 14-8-97 wherein in Paragraph 12 he pointed out that employees working in petitioner union would be gettin'g the benefit of T.W.R.F. scheme. It is the submission of Shri Gajankush further that without giving the benefit of said scheme, the representation of the petitioner has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajbali Singh Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT165; 2001(3)MPLJ276
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. If man could have arrested 'Time', the greatest and invincible enemy of man, 'that old common arbitrator' and make it his slave the history of man-kind would have been different. It has been said even when Almighty descends on earth in the shape of man, is governed by Rules of time. He who does not act within the framework of time loses not only the gifts of nature but also privileges bestowed by man made law. Delay and laches do always create impediment for obtaining the benefit ordinarily permissible in law because the law helps them who are vigilant to knock at the door of justice within time stipulated.2. The present case depicts a situation where the petitioner has woken up after three and half decades and asked for relief which has been denied by the respondent. Heart of the matter is whether such denial requires to be lanceted in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The essential facts :According to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Perfect Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPLJ43; [2001]122STC641(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in the petition shall also govern the disposal of other connected petition being W.P. No. 1737 of 2000 as in both these petitions, one common question of law is involved.2. The question that arises for consideration in these two petitions is whether 'foot valve' is or can be treated as an 'accessories' of the pumping sets so as to fall under entry 89 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). Yet another question that falls for consideration is whether 'foot valve' is or can be treated as an agricultural implement so as to fall under entry 94 of Schedule I to the Adhiniyam. The facts which lie in a narrow compass for the disposal of the petition need mention infra in brief.3. The petitioner is a proprietory concern, one Shri Samsuddin being its proprietor. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of 'foot valves'. According to the petitioner, these foot valves...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Lokman Singh an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP206; 2001(2)MPHT1; 2001(2)MPLJ270
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 28-8-98, passed in Claim Case No. 51/88 of 1st Addl. Claims Tribunal, Morena, whereunder, the compensation of Rs. 20,500/- has been awarded to respondent No. 1, appellant/owner of offending vehicle, has filed this appeal for setting aside the aforesaid award.2. Respondent No. 1 Lokman Singh had tiled the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for damage caused to Tractor No. M.P. 06/5046 in an accident by appellant Bus No. R.J. 14/P-1104. It is alleged that on 20-1-94, when claimant's tractor was parked near the road, the driver of bus dashed the bus against tractor by rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus, with the result tractor was destroyed into pieces.3. The reply was filed on behalf of appellant that the driver of tractor was rash or negligent, with the result, tractor suddenly emerged on the road from the field side and when the driver of the bus tried to save the tractor, it rammed...
Tag this Judgment!Ramraj Prasad Karsoliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1594; 2001(4)MPHT323; 2002(2)MPLJ21
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 6th April, 2000 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 18/97 by the Special Judge, Bhopal authorised under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to try the cases arising out of the Act.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam (for short 'the Nigam'). He is being tried under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act because it was alleged that he had taken bribe of Rs. 15,000/- from complainant Karmaveer Singh.3. The charge-sheet discloses that sanction for prosecution of the applicant as per Section 19 of the Act was granted by the Board on 24-10-97. The sanction order shows that on 22-3-97 when the alleged offence was committed, the applicant was working as Managing Director of the Nigam. It also appears from the sanction that initially he was an employee of the aforesaid Ni...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatrapal Singh Thakur Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Coal-mines Provi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR451]; (2001)IILLJ1327MP; 2001(5)MPHT644
ORDER1. Through this Letters Patent Appeal, judgment dated September 20, 1996 of learned single Judge passed in Misc. Petition No. 1867 of 1989 has been challenged. Briefly, facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be narrated hereafter:The petitioner/appellant was appointed Lower Division Clerk on June 14, 1983 by the Commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur. He joined the post on June 25, 1983. However, by order dated June 12, 1987 (Annex. P4), his services have been terminated. The petitioner challenged the termination order through Misc. Petition No. 1867 of 1989 which has been dismissed by order dated September 20, 1996. The ground of challenge was that the petitioner having acquired status of permanent employee after completion of extended period of probation, could not have been terminated. Another ground of challenge was that he has been terminated by an authority lower than the authority which appointed, meaning thereby he was appointed by Commissioner, Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »