Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Mohammad Mushtaque Vs. Jama Masjid Committee, Sagar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT551; 2002(2)MPLJ56
ORDERV.K. Agrawal, J.1. These Misc. Appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 26th Marh, 1996 by District Judge, Sagar. Since similar questions are involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts no longer in dispute are that the appellants of all the appeals are tenants of the respondent - Jama Masjid Committee in different suit-shops. It is also not in dispute that the suit-property is Wakf Property. The initial rent of each suit-shop was Rs. 40.00 per month which was agreed by the parties to be increased to Rs. 180.00 per month. The appellants filed an application under Section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Sagar, for fixation of standard rent of the suit-shops, The Rent Controlling Authority, Sagar by its order dated 1-10-92 fixed the standard rent of each of the suit-shop at Rs. 54.00 per month. The present respondents ...
Gwalior Potteries and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR521]; (2002)IVLLJ191MP
S.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the direction of reinstatement of respondent No. 1.2. Respondent No. 1 Bhagwan Das was serving as Helper. Respondent No. 1 was served with a charge-sheet dated October 29, 1996 and after enquiry services of respondent No. 1 were terminated vide order dated June 11, 1987. Dispute under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MPIR Act') was filed before the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 has challenged that the order or termination is void and he prayed that he should be paid entire back wages and he should be treated in service. Labour Court, in its final order dated June 15, 1992, held that the departmental enquiry against the workman is valid but the nature of allegation is such on which punishment of dismissal from service is excessive. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 was that he had abused and threatened...
Sheikh Shahzad Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT202
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order directing surveillance against him.2. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and carries on business for his living. It is putforth that he has personal knowledge that Station House Officer, Bhainsdehi, District Betul the respondent No. 4 herein, initiated surveillance proceeding and started preparation of history sheet. As pleaded, the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in three criminal cases. It has been urged that in one case the offence was compounded and he was acquitted and in two other cases registered for offences punishable under Sections 107 and 116 of Cr.PC the proceedings have been terminated. According to the writ petitioner on 24-4-1996 the respondent No. 4 alongwith some others came to the petitione...
Suresh Alias Pappu Vs. Vidhi Chandra Dharamshala and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT268; 2002(1)MPLJ369
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionlst/judgment-debtor as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiffs/respondents decree-holder.2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit in the year 1986 for the eviction of seven defendants including the applicant from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The defendants were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased sole tenant, Shri Poptmal. The arrears of rent had been claimed from 1-10-1984. The aforesaid suit, vide the order dated 20-12-1996 passed by the Trial Court had proceeded ex parte against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, an order had been passed by the Trial Court requiring the deposit of the arrears of rent from 1-10-1984 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, this order had not been complied with and ...
State of M.P. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR724]; (2002)IVLLJ190MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Challenge in this writ filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to an award dated September 22, 1997 (Annexure P-7), passed by Labour Court under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. By impugned award, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of respondent alongwith back wages. It is this award which is impugned by the state.2. Heard Ms. Meena Chafekar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for petitioner-State.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (State) and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the writ, worth admission.4. Once, the Labour Court while answering the reference made to it, on evidence records a finding that the respondent has worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year, that no retrenchment compensation was paid to respondent before dispensing his services, that no inquiry was held prior to his termination for any misconduct, then in my view no case for an interference, is made out by...
Jagdish Narayan Dixit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT232
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J. 1. The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the then UpAyukta Nagar Nigam, Gwalior Dr. Hari had directed him to encash the amount of cheque which stood in his name and then hand over the amount for distribution to the clerk-cum-cashier and according to this direction the amount was handed over to the clerk concerned. Annexures P-1 to P-3 have been enclosed to substantiate the argument. 2. However it seems that these documents were not filed before the Trial Court so as to consider them if necessary at the stage of framing of charge. 3. No doubt sometimes the prescribed rules are not followed practically to expedite any relief work and in that case the violation of rule becomes only a matter of departmental enquiry and not meant for prosecuting an authority who had acted bonafidely. The prosecuting agency in such a situation should see in facts and circumstances of each case as to what was the actual practical working in given case and then alone deci...
Kishan Lal Vs. Naaheed Maylkat and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002MP149; 2002(1)MPHT233
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J. Heard. Perused the record. 1. The plaintiff/applicant feels aggrieved by an order passed by the Trial Court whereunder it rejected his application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151, CPC. 2. It is not disputed that the suit is still pending and no decree in favour of the plaintiff has been passed so far. 3. It may be noticed that the application filed by the plaintiff/applicant referred to hereinabove contained absolutely vague allegations. The said application was not entertainable as no decree in favour of the plaintiff has come into existence as yet. 4. In fact, from the materials brought on record it appears that the plaintiff wanted to get an ad interim injunction granted in his favour enforced apprehending its violation. In case, there was any disobedience of an injunction, the order passed by the Court below which is claimed to be affirmed by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in that case, it wa...
Dwarika Prasad Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1080; II(2002)DMC122; 2002(1)MPHT311; 2002(1)MPLJ274
S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellant Dwarika Prasad Soni has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) for this offence. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides the evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised. Deceased Vijaylaxmi was the daughter of Harishankar (P.W. 2) and sister of Govind Singh (P.W. 4). She was married to accused Dwarika Prasad on 8-2-1985 at Kanpur. The couple lived at Kanpur for sometime. In 1988 Dwarika Prasad and his wife shifted to Fatehpur and then started living at Morena in Madhya Pradesh. She consumed acid on 9-5-1991 at Morena and died on 10-9-1991 at Gwalior. 3. The prosecution case was that the accused was demanding dowry from the father and brother of his wife and he was treating her with cruelty. The incidents of cruelty are said to have taken place when Dwarika Prasad...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kanhaiyalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MPHT504
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J. 1. In this appeal, the questions of adjudication that arise between the parties are whether the objection filed by the appellant on 27-11-1995, was well within the period of limitation of 30 days, on which date, the arbitrator filed the original award and the appellant had filed the objection to it and whether the application filed by the appellant on 7-10-1995 along with the photocopy of the award duly signed by the arbitrator, could be construed as filing of the original award by the arbitrator or on his behalf, as contemplated under provisions of Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'theAct') as also whether 7-10-1995 could be considered as the date of issuance of notice to the parties for filing of their objection within a period of limitation of 30 days.2. To resolve the aforesaid dispute, facts in brief are required to be narrated that:--The appellant/Union of India, through the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur filed an application under Section 14 ...
Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR725]; (2002)IVLLJ194MP
A.M. Sapre, J.1. Heard finally.2. By filing this writ petition, an ex-employee of the respondent Corporation complains and prays by writ of mandamus that he may be paid interest on the retiral dues which according to petitioner were paid to him quite late. In other words, this writ petition has been filed by the present petitioner only for claiming interest on various retiral benefits which were already paid to him but according to petitioner quite late. It is this delayed payment, which has given rise to this writ petition for claiming interest on the retiral dues.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents for payment of interest. A writ petition for claiming mere interest on retiral dues may not be maintainable. The remedy may he in some other Forum depending upon the nature of retiral dues and under which Act it is paid.4. The petition accordingly is found to be devoid of substance and is dismissed with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »