Madhya Pradesh Court March 2001 Judgments
Smt. Preetha Nair Vs. Gopkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC170
S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. Appellant-petitioner has directed this appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 26.6.2000 passed by A.D.J., Biora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 14A/99, thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the appellant under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent.2. On appearance of the respondent on service of notice of final hearing of this appeal, an effort was made for reconciliation between the parties. But due to the differences existing between the parties, the reconciliation was not possible.3. During the pendency of this appeal, on 27.3.2001, both appellant and the respondent jointly filed I.A. No. 1090/2001 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. On filing the aforesaid application, the statements of the parties have been recorded by this Court and on perusal o...
Tag this Judgment!Jalan Ispat Castings Limited Vs. M.P.E.B. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT486
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of other three connected writ petitions being WP Nos. 195, 123 and 161 of 1995, as in all these four writ petitions the challenge is to one action of the respondent Board.2. In substance, the challenge in these petitions is to impugned circulars dated 30-09-1992, 30-09-1993 and 12-02-1994 (Annexure P2) whereby levy of two charges by what is called as FCA (Fuel Cost Adjustment) charges and NTPC rate adjustment charges which were being charged separately prior to issuance of the impugned circulars, are now merged into one in the electricity tarrif by the M.P.E.B. According to petitioners the merger of these two charges in one is contrary to agreement and/or to tarrif pattern and hence, bad in law. It was initially challenged in one petition being M.P. No. 1789/92. When this Court by its order dated 22-10-1994 simply asked the Board to decide first the representation of petitioners wherein they had obj...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT144
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. All of them have been heard. Shri L. Bhatnagar vehemently submitted that petitioner has been charged for committing the act of forging the seals of Gram Panchayat and thereby preparing the bogus ration cards and misappropriating the property of Gram Panchayat, Malyahedi weighing about 7.55 quintals of wheat. He has been removed from service without even affording him the opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the said allegation constitutes an offence and if an appropriate writ is not granted in favour of the petitioner, it would stigmatize him and would be leaving him without any defence in the criminal prosecution. Mrs. Chaphekar submitted that she is entitled to make a submission though respondents 1 to 3 did not file the return challenging the maintainability of the writ petition for supporting the order which is being attempted to be quashed. She was given permission to make the submissions making reference to the averments made in the petition and th...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Botadra Vs. Assistant Commissioner, C. Ex.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2003(162)ELT159(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents No. 3 and 4 to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merit. This Court by order dated 9-3-2001 had directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition on Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India.2. On a perusal of the order, dated 16-7-1999, it transpires that the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner deposited Rs. 60,000/- but did not deposit Rs. 40,000/- as a consequence of which, the Tribunal by order, dated 19-11-1999 dismissed the appeal in non-compliance of the provision enshrined under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal granted opportunity to the petitioner to seek restoration of the appeal if it deposit Rs. 40,000/- on or before 12-9-99. The petitioner did not deposit the amount in question and has approached this Court.3. Mrs. Indira...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Murarilal and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT193; 2001(3)MPLJ256
S.S. Saraf, J.1. This appeal under Section 100, CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1996 passed by the learned Xth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 9-A/91 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 16-4-1991 passed by the learned VIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 30-A/91.2. The essential facts necessary to decide the appeal are :--The plaintiffs/respondents are the landlords while the defendant/appellant is the tenant in the suit premises which was let out for residential purposes. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted the eviction suit against the defendant/appellant on the grounds under Section 12 (1) (a), (e) & (g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short the `Act'). It has been pleaded that the defendant/appellant is defaulter, the suit premises is required bona fide for the occupation of the plaintiffs/respondents and their family members and they have no other reasonably suitable accommodation o...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT380; 2001(2)MPLJ596
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent No. 2 to call him for the allotment of the STD-PCO on Maihar Railway Station Platform No. 1 and consider his tender form at the time of opening of the tender.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the Divisional Railway Manager, (Commercial) Jabalpur, respondent No. 2 herein, published a notice inviting tender in the daily news paper 'Nav Bharat' on 20th August, 2000 for Central Railway, Jabalpur Division for the allotment of STD/PCO/Fax/Inter-net booth in Jabalpur, Katni, Satna, Sagar, Damoh, Pipariya, Gadarwara, Narsinghpur and Maihar Railway Stations. A copy of the paper publication has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. The petitioner applied for allotment in respect of Maihar Railway Station Platform No. 1 and submitted his tender Form 'A' and Form 'B' with all the docu...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. Superintending Engineer, Lower Chambal Circle and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR902]; (2001)IILLJ1324MP; 2001(4)MPHT214; 2001(2)MPLJ428
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate representing the State-respondent No. 1.2. Perused the record.3. The appellant who was a respondent in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal feels aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereundcr allowing the writ petition filed by the employer, the order passed by the Industrial Court directing the reinstatement of the appellant in service with the entitlement to have 50% of the back wages was quashed restoring the order of the Labour Court which had dismissed the application filed by the present appellant under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, upholding the order dismissing him from the service. The appellant has prayed for the setting aside of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and restoration of the order passed by the Industrial Court.4. The appellant claimed to have acquir...
Tag this Judgment!Bittan Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2001MP266; 2001(4)MPHT380; 2001(2)MPLJ444
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. In regular course of adjudicatory process the present writ petition would have been taken up for final hearing in view of the narrow compass of the controversy involved but the said exercise could not be undertaken as Mr. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the copy of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the State Government and its functionaries, has not been served on him and at that juncture Mr. A.S. Raizada, learned Government Advocate contended the copy of the return need not be given to the counsel for the respondent No. 4 as it is not the mandate of Rule 1 ] (a) occurring in Chapter II Section Three of M.P. High Court Rules and Orders. As such a stand was taken by the learned Government Advocate it was thought apposite to hear on the said issue and accordingly the learned counsel for the parties were permitted to putforth their contentions in this regard.2. The learned counsel for the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Bhaiya Tripathi and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)MPHT425; 2002(1)MPLJ328
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5201/2000 have challenged the order dated 17-4-2000 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, Distt. Satna, in Case No. 26-C/144/Appeal/97-98 and the connected appeals, by which the Collector has set aside the select list of Shiksha Karmis Grade III dated 15-9-1998 prepared by the Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan. In the connected two petitions, the very order has been challenged only in so far as it directs that selection on the basis of applications already received be made in accordance with the amended provisions of the rules. 2. Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawan had issued advertisement on 8-7-1998 inviting applications for the post of Shiksha Karmis Grade III and on the basis of the applications received, candidates were called for interview and selection was made. On the said select list having been challenged in various appeals, the Collector had stayed further action in pursuance of the said select list and given notice to ...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinghlal Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT165
S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 4-4-1984, at the time of admission of the appeal:--(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below was justified in awarding damages for malicious prosecution and,(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below was justified in not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act?2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that defendant Narsinghlal was Food Inspector at Kukshi. On 7-11-1977 he went to the kirana shop of the plaintiff Ashok Kumar. Gud was being sold in this shop. The Food Inspector took sample of Gud and prepared a panchnama. According to the Food Inspector, this panchnama was torn by the plaintiff and he prevented the Food Inspector from taking further action as r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »