Madhya Pradesh Court November 2001 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.
Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir and anr. Vs. Fehmida Begam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT143; 2002(1)MPLJ482
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendants against the order dated 15-12-2000 of the Second Additional District Judge, Second in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 2000 by which plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment in the plaint has been allowed.2. The plaintiff instituted the civil suit in the year 1993 for eviction of the defendants under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for arrears of rent. In the plaint description of the defendant No. 1 is 'Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir through Secretary, Raghuraj Singh Baghel'. It was pleaded that the suit accommodation had been let out to the defendants for running a school by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and it is required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself and for the members of her family. The suit was being contested by the defendants. Both the parties adduced their evidence. Their arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgm...
Shankerlal Raikwar Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT193
Arun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the writ petition is whether Raikwar is sub-caste of Manjhi and whether it is open to include Raikwar within the Manjhi castein the absence of same being specified in the presidential order as one of the Scheduled Tribes.2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 25-5-1990 in M.P. Antyavasayi Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. It is significant that the petitioner was appointed on 25-5-1990 and after about one month, he sought mention of Raikwar caste instead of Manjhi against his name. Suspicion arose about the caste of the petitioner. The matter was enquired into and it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner at Manjhi caste was not correct. The respondents also found that fraud was committed while securing the appointment. After enquiry, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16-10-1996 to show cause why his services should not be dispensed with and why he should not be prosecuted under t...
Vishnu Prasad Gontiya and anr. Vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT488; 2002(1)MPLJ500
ORDER1. This is a revision by the applicants against the order dated 14-9-2001 in MJC No. 63/2000 of the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur before whom their application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending challenging the arbitral award 8-5-2000. This award is being enforced as per Section 36 of the Act before 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur,2. Arguments on the question of admission heard. By the impugned order the execution of the award has been stayed subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of the award. As a matter of fact the applicants should submit an application before the 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur where the award is being enforced to stay the execution as the application under Section 34 of the Act is pending and it has been submitted within time. Section 36 of the Act provides that where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having ...
Bhageshawari Bai and anr. Vs. Munna and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT46
P.C. Agrawal, J. 1. Bhageshawari Bai and Anr. v. Munna, the Second Addl. District Judge, Betul in Civil Case No. 8-A/2001, Munna v. Bhageshawari and two Ors., on 12-7-2001 allowed an application filed by Munna (R-l) and granted a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to be called as Code only) and restrained (he appellants from interfering in possession of Munna (R-l) over the suit land bearing khasra No. 137/2, area 1.619 hectare situate in village Ankabadi (to be called as suit land only).2. Aggrieved thereby, this misc. appeal was filed on 25-7-2001.3. Munna (R-l) was in cultivatory possession of the suit land from 24-6-94 to 24-6-2000 under a contract. Sugarcane is being grown on the suit land. Bhageshawari Bai (A-1) has executed a sale deed on 1-12-2000 in favour of Ajay Kumar (A-2). The suit land has been mutated in the name of Ajay Kumar (A-2) and Kishan Pawti and Rin Pustika have been issued in his name. Munna (R-l) has filed a civil ...
Mukesh Namdeo Vs. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT142; 2002(2)MPLJ40
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. These writ petitions (W.P. No. 2648/2000, Mukesh Namdeo v. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur and another; W.P. No. 2649/2000, Kalyan Singh Yadav v. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur and another; W.P. No. 4679/2000, Santosh Kumar Gangele v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4682/2000, Virendra Kumar Tiwari and another v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4748/2000, Haricharan Ahirwar v. Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another; W.P. No. 4685/2000, Registrar-cum-Commissioner and another) are decided by this common order.2. Petitioner-Mukesh Namdeo in W.P. No. 2648/2000 was appointed on 29-8-1996 in District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chhatarpur on daily wages as Clerk-cum-Typist. Petitioner-Kalyan Singh Yadav in W.P. No. 2649/2000 was appointed on daily wages on 11-12-1996 as Driver. Petitioner-Santosh Kumar Gangele in W.P. No. 4679/2000 was appointed on 25-10-1996 as daily wages employee. In W.P....
Bhagirath Vs. Iqbal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC398
ORDER1. Appellant/claimant has directed this appeal against the award dated 2.1.2001 passed by IIIrd Additional MACT, Dewas in Claim Case No. 69/2000 thereby awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation together with 10% interest from the date of the application till its realisation.2. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel and on perusal of the facts stated in para No. 8 of the impugned award, it emerged that the alleged accident occurred on 24.3.2000 and thereafter claimant was admitted to Dewas Hospital for his treatment. During his treatment an X-ray of his right leg was taken up. The X-ray does not indicate any fracture whereas Dr. A.K. Dube P.W. 2 who gave the disability certificate to the extent of 19% disability, has examined the claimant on 4.12.2000 and the X-ray report of the said date indicates that the Calcaneum bone of right ankle joint was not at all present and as a result of the said fact disability certificate of 19% was given by Dr. A.K. Dube. It is pertinent to not...
S.S. Kaushal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT295; 2002(1)MPLJ493
ORDERBbawani Singh, C.J. 1. Appellant has challenged order of Single Judge dated 9-10-2000 passed in W.P. No. 4055 of 2000.2. The appeal was filed on 8-11-2001. It was not accompanied by application for condonation of delay. This application was filed on 31-8-2001. When the matter was considered by the Court on 20-8-2001, the appellant sought time for filing additional affidavit in support of the application, which was granted. However, instead of filing additional affidavit, a detailed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed on 1-9-2001, supported by affidavit. Respondents have filed replies to both the applications.3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellant, submitted that he did not file application for condonation of delay along with the appeal because appellant was not required to file certified copy of the order/judgment under Rule XIII (3) of the Letters Patent Rules framed by this Court, effective from June 24, 1994...
Municipal Council, Panna Vs. the Controlling Authority and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR143]; 2002(2)MPHT36
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the instant writ petition is whether provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are applicable to Municipal Council, Guna, the petitioner, and the order of Controlling Authority directing Municipal Council to pay the gratuity amounting to Rs. 14,507/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% simple interest with effect from 1-9-96 is proper.2. The petitioner was employed as Timekeeper. He was appointed on 1-1-1975 and was removed from the service on 31st August, 1996. He served for a period of 21 years and 8 months. His last pay was Rs. 1,143/- p.m. Petitioner claimed entitlement for gratuity amounting to Rs. 15,840/-.3. Controlling Authority issued notice to the Municipal Council, Panna. The petitioner herein, in reply contended that respondent No. 2 was appointed as muster roll employee. Initially his services were terminated on 12-3-85. Thereafter he was employed on temporary basis for 89 days. Since respondent No. 2 completed the age o...
Prakash Vs. Dr. H.S. Gaur Vishwavidyalaya and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT266; 2002(1)MPLJ586
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner assails validity of the order dated 13-10-2000 ordering his dismissal from service for extremely bad performance and unsatisfactory work. In lieu of three month's notice, three month's salary was to be paid but the amount was ordered to be a adjusted against the dues against petitioner.2. Petitioner submits that he was appointed on 9-11-82 as sweeper in the pay scale of Rs. 125 - 150/-. The appointment was made in accordance with para 5 of Statute No. 31. As per para 5 of Statute No. 31, in no case the total period of probation shall exceed three years and by the afflux of time, the petitioner acquired permanent status on 10-5-1985, The order of termination is stigmatic, violative of natural justice and was inflicted without affording opportunity of being heard. No enquiry was conducted.3. The respondent-University contends that petitioner was a habitual absentee and was in habit of mis-behaving with his seniors and ignoring their command and was most ...
i.J. Kapani Vs. Finance Secretary and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR455(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The petitioner claiming to be an industrial consultant by profession and resident of Indore has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as public interest litigation (P.I.L.) essentially against the Income-tax Department and also against one individual (who too was added by way of amendment as respondent No. 4 in the writ)--Mr. Gangadhar Verma. By this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that several persons/firms/associations/companies, who are engaged in the business of sale, purchase of land and construction of buildings (known as builders in common parlance) in the city of Indore are indulging in tax evasion to the tune of crores of rupees by resorting to several illegal means while carrying on their business activities. It is complained that the modus operandi resorted to by these builders has put the exchequer in loss to a great extent. To support the complaint, the petitioner has impleaded one of the builders as resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »