Madhya Pradesh Court June 2002 Judgments
State of M.P. and anr. Vs. Pare Construction Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT199
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 24-1-2002 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 77/99 the applicants herein have filed this revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Ad-hikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.2. The respondents herein submitted a reference petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal claiming Rs. 1,95,221/-. Their tender for executing the work of construction of Majoos Khurd Lift Irrigation Scheme in Tehsil Gouharganj, District Raisen was accepted. The work was to be completed within 12 months.3. According to the respondents work involved two operations. First was fixing of railing and raising pump house and second was to supply and fixing of pump and equipments deep in the water. The work could not be completed within the stipulated period because the applicants shifted the site. As per contract wooden rafter was to be provided but oral instructions were issued that it be constructed by tubular tr...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT215
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Shri Jain submits that once the applicant has been acquitted of offence under Section 332, IPC, he becomes entitled to be acquitted also of offence under Section 353, IPC, Mr. Jain, further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of release on probation of good conduct under Section 360, Cr.PC. 3. Smt. Sharma, appearing for the State submits that this Court in criminal revision should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and as the findings of the Courts below is categorical that the applicant caused assault with shoe, to the complainant, a public servant, he should not be considered for the benefit of release on probation. 4. On due consideration of rival submissions, I am of the considered view that the submissions of Mr. Jain have no force. The learned Courts below have recorded acquittal of offence under Section 332, IPC on...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadhar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR926]; (2003)ILLJ412MP; 2002(4)MPHT217; 2003(1)MPLJ244
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 9-7-1999, agreeing with the decision of the respondents in declining to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal.2. Appellant was sweeper in the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. Hewas appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father. He was terminated from service on 23-8-1993. He raised industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Conciliation proceedings met with failure and failure report submitted to the appropriate Government which by order dated 27-1-1999, declined to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication for the following reasons:--'The dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 5 years without any justifiable reason for the long delay.'Appellant challenged this order stating that no limitation is prescribed for raising the dispute. Even otherwise, this question is to be decided by Court of competent jurisdiction. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Ashok Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC164; II(2003)ACC469; 2004ACJ1570
R.B. Dixit, J.1. First Addl. Claims Tribunal, Bhind, by award dated 8.2.1996, passed in Claim Case No. 37 of 1991, awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 for the death of deceased Chhiddi in the accident occurred on 19.7.1991, at about 12 noon by truck No. MBG 9895, belonging to the respondent No. 1 Ashok, alleged to have been insured on the same date with National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2.2. In this appeal for enhancement, the learned counsel of the appellants has submitted that the deceased was about 50 years of age, at the time of accident and was agriculturist, earning about Rs. 30,000 per year. Learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the exact income of the deceased was not properly proved and in the circumstances, it is not possible to assess dependency. The learned Claims Tribunal, in the circumstances, fixed compensation of Rs. 25,000 on the basis of no fault liability and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, thus, awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation. Relying up...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Prasad Patel Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)MPHT140; 2003(1)MPLJ605
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This matter is listed after notice for final disposal.2. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. Shri Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the materials on record filed with challan do not attract any of the ingredients of Section 107, IPC, therefore, prima facie, no case under Section 306, IPC is made out; the only material which weighed with consideration of the Trial Judge for framing a charge under Section 306, IPC is a suicide note which does not ascribe a specific intentional act to facilitate the commission of offence. The suicide note on english translation reads as under:-'When Shri Madan Patel went to fill up the form against Gajad-har Patel in an election of Sarpanch, Gajadhar Patel started sweating, therefore, my cultivation was disturbed and hence I commit suicide. Myself and my entire family members are admitted to Congress Party from today. Till date we had been in Bhartiya Janta Party. His party members Gutbandhi Pate...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ971; AIR2003MP156; 2003(1)MPHT371
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the question arises whether 'electricity' can he treated as a 'hazardous substance' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Puhlic Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (for short 'Act of 1991') read with Section 2(e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'Act of 1986').2. Claimant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Sukarti Bai filed an application before the Collector, District Mandla claiming compensation from petitioner M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur on account of the death of her husband Kashiram as the death of her husband took place owing to electrocution while the deceased came in contact with the electric wire.3. The Collector has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-holding that the electricity is a hazardous substance as per Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.4. The petitioner in the instant writ petition avers that M.P. Electricity Board is a body duly constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Prajapati Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP171
Dipak Misra, J.1.By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a Municipal Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has prayed for declaration of Rule 3(2) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (the Conduct of Business of the Mayor-in-Council/President-in-Council and the powers and Functions of the Authorities) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as ultra vires the Section 37 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (Act of 23 of 1956) (for brevity 'the Act') and further to quash the said Rule by issue of appropriate writ, order or direction.2. The facts exposited in the petition are that the petitioner is a Municipal Councillor of Bhopal Municipal Council. The State Government amended the act by the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 (Act No. 20 of 1998). By virtue of the said amendment Section 37 was substituted. The substituted provision deals with constitution of Mayor-in-Council. It is put...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Surana Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC255(MP)
1. Heard.2. This reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) is made at the instance of the Revenue for resolution of the following question :'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty under Section 45-B of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 as the assessee was exempted from payment of tax but was not prohibited from collecting the tax from customers.'3. It is seen that the question involved stands answered by a division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Akshya Industries [1996] 29 VKN 142 wherein it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay penalty under Section 45-B of the Act even if it has recovered tax from the customers. Accordingly we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.4. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Board of Revenue with reference to their reference No. 72-PBR/91 arising fr...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Distillers Limited Vs. the Collector (Excise) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT12
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner/company which is a licence holder in Form D-2 for manufacturing liquor and having licence in Form D-1 for wholesale supply of spirit has filed this petition calling in question the orders passed by the respondents by which an amount of Rs. 6,142/- had been imposed by way of penalty.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Collector had issued a show-cause notice on 23-9-1987 in which it was alleged that there was loss of 275.4 proof liters of rectified spirit in transit. The show-cause notice indicates that as to why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner/company for the aforesaid transit loss. In reply, the petitioner contended that for shortage of rectified spirit, the State Government has no power to impose any excise duty. The reply was rejected and the Collector vide order, Annexure P-5, dated 1-2-1989, imposed the aforesaid penalty.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Excise Commissioner wh...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhanshu Kamal and ors. Vs. Awadhesh Singh Bhadoriya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)1; 2002CriLJ4532; 2002(3)MPHT496
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. This petition is filed against the order dated 19-3-2001 passed by AC. Shukla, Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.2. A complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court of Special Judge alleging an offence under Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). On filing of complaint Special Judge without going through the contents of the complaint has directed that the complaint be investigated by Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Gwalior and directed that enquiry report be produced on 18-4-2001.3. Record of Trial Court is requisitioned. In the complaint it is alleged that complainant No. 1 is an Advocate and is a member of Executive Committee of High Court Bar Association and complainant No. 2 is an Advocate. In para 3 of the complaint it is mentioned that accused Nos. 1 to 3 (petitioners) without any authority have issued orders directing that wearing of Headgear is co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »