Madhya Pradesh Court July 2002 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.
Babu Ali and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC504
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This is an application Under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 86/2002 for the offence punishable Under Sections 498A, 323, 506, I.P.C.2. The applicant No. 1 Babu Ali is the husband and applicant Nos. 2,3,4 are his relations. The applicant No. 1 was married before 10 years with the complainant-wife Najma. She has given birth to 4 children; 3 daughters and one son. Now after 10 years of the marriage a false allegation has been levelled by the complainant against the applicants regarding ill-treatment for demand of dowry. On the other hand the contention of the Panel Lawyer Mr. Palsikar is that the applicant No. 1 has contracted second marriage without giving divorce to his first wife-complainant Najma, In Mohammadan community, the husband can contract a second marriage and for the purpose, he is not required to give divorce to his first wife. It appears that the second marriage of applicant No. 1 is the cause of dispute between the applicant and th...
B.D. Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT164; 2002(3)MPLJ483
ORDERChandresh Bhushan, J.1. Aggrieved by order dated 14-7-1998 (Annexure P-l), passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior, in O. A. No. 160/98, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Joint Director of Education, retired w.e.f. 30-6-1988. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry for misconduct was held against him, but was later on dropped vide order dated 23-2-1995 (Annexure P-3) and he was paid arrears of pension amounting to Rs. 98,631/- together with commuted amount of pension of Rs. 60,978A and gratuity and leave encashment on 19-8-1996 and 24-5-1997. Contending that these amounts of his retiral benefits were withheld without any authority of law and therefore, he has entitled to interest on all these amounts at the rate of 18% per annum, an application, registered as O.A. No. 160/98, was filed by the petitioner before the M.P. State Admini...
Sultan Ahmad Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1018]; 2002(4)MPHT328; 2002(3)MPLJ499
Chandresh Bhushan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal in part of his petition, regarding his claim for benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years, passed by a Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1373/97 on 2-2-2000, this L.P.A. under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Nagpur, has been preferred by the appellants.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant who was appointed initially as apprentice cleaner in Madhya Bharat Roadways, Gwalior, w.e.f. 1-3-1959 and after his promotions as Assistant Mechanic and then Mechanic in different grades and ultimately as Works Supervisor, retired w.e.f. 30-6-97 on completion of 58 years of age. A petition was thereafter filed by him in this Court claiming that he was entitled to continue in service till the completion of 60 years, which was the age of superannuation for the employees of Madhya Bharat Roadways and which was a condition of service saved vide communication dated 31-5-1962, issued at the time of transfer of his s...
Shyam Singh Rathore Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT332
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner who is a retired employee of the respondent- Corporation, has filed the present petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in making recovery from his post retiral dues.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had retired from service on 31-8-1996 and the retiral dues have not been finalised. Only 90% (ninety percent) anticipatory pension and gratuity have been paid, however the final settlement of the dues alongwith payment of P.F, Surrender leave, Insurance amount and computation of pension were not done.3. The petitioner while in service was in occupant of a quarter and was paying monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is his case that the Corporation is having different properties and the Corporation is letting out the same on rent not only to its employees but also to other persons who are not its employees. It is his case that in the instant case the quarter is occupied by him as an ordinary tenant and it has not been allotted t...
Nemichand (Deceased Through L.Rs.) Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1101]; 2003(2)MPHT22
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directed against the judgment and decree passed on 30th April, 1991 by the XI Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 143-A/89, dismissing appellant's suit for declaration and recovery of arrears of pay etc. 2. Appellant/plaintiff Nemichand has died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by his LRs Smt. Sushilarani and four others. Late Nemichand was an employee of the M.P. Financial Corporation, Indore. He was appointed on 25th June, 1960. A regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide memo No. 271/C/68-69, dated 3-6-68 on certain charges. The departmental enquiry was conducted by one S.K. Pandit, Secretary of the defendant Corporation. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 7-9-1968 held the plaintiff guilty of the charges. On receipt of the said report the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Managing Director of the defendant Corp...
Agrawal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd. (Now Admanum Finance Ltd.) Vs. Co ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(MP)15; [2002]257ITR235(MP)
N.K. Jain, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the applicant-assessee, arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Indore Bench, Indore, dated September 26, 1995, in I. T. A. No. 952/Ind of 1994 seeking answers to the following questions stated to be questions of law :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal once having held that its decisions are binding on the lower authorities, was right in not setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in which the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had refused to follow the order of the Tribunal ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the appeal on the preliminary issue regarding binding nature of orders of the Tribunal on lower authorities and instead dismissing the appeal on the basis of the grounds which were raised...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Rajaram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ927MP; 2003(1)MPHT324; 2003(1)MPLJ90
ORDER1. The Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior, vide its impugned order dated 6-11-1998 considering the impact of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1992 MPST 5, came to the conclusion that the punishment of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside on the ground that he was not furnished with copy of the enquiry report and did not issue any show-cause notice before passing the final order, punishing him with a major penalty and consequently quashed the order of punishment with liberty to initiate the departmental proceedings afresh against him from the stage of issue of a regular notice after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Larger Bench decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1075, has observed that when the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to hi...
Ajit @ Bhuriya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT327; 2003(1)MPLJ44
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed against the order dated 20-6-2002 passed by II ASJ, Ratlam, in Criminal Revision No. 83/2002, arising out of Criminal Case No. 235/94 order passed on 22-5-2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailana.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that applicant Ajit @ Bhuriya was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 365/34 and 120B, IPC in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 90 by the judgment dated 29-11-1994. Against this judgment, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 831/94. This criminal appeal, has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 4-4-2002. The appellant/applicant has been acquitted from the charges of offences under Section 302/34, IPC read with Section 120B, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment has been set aside and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 365, IPC.3. During the ...
Awadesh NaraIn Mishra Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and or ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1020]; (2002)IIILLJ800MP
R.B. Dixit, J.1. The appellant/petitioner aggrieved by an offer to be appointed as Fuel Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-870-15-945 and was also offered to be absorbed on the same pay, had filed a Writ Petition No. 2051/1997 before the learned single Judge of this Court. The contention of the petitioner/appellant was that this offer amounts to his reversion from the post of driver/Vehicle Inspector. However, the learned single Judge by the impugned order found that in facts and circumstances of the case, this order does not amount to reversion.2. The facts in brief shorn of details are that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 1015/1995 claiming that he was working since 1974 as Vehicle Inspector and has been directedto work as driver on the stage carriage after long lapse of time and it will be hazardous for the petitioner as well as travelling passengers as he met with an accident. This Court in that petition directed the respondents to consider the case of the petiti...
Smt. Saraswati Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT415
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is assailing the resolution of No Confidence Motion passed on 12-6-2002 by Nagar Panchayat, Barela, District Jabalpur against the petitioner.2. No Confidence Motion has been carried out by 2/3rd majority of the elected Councillors of the Nagar Panchayat. Petitioner was holding the post of Vice-President of Nagar Panchayat. In all 10 votes were cast in favour of No Confidence Motion and 5 against it. It is not in dispute that it has been carried out by requisite majority as mentioned in Section 43-A of the Municipalities Act.3. Two grounds have been taken to assail the No Confidence Motion, resolution Annexure P-4 dated 12-6-2002. First ground is under Sub-section (2) of Section 43-A the SDO was authorized to preside over the meeting by the Collector, District Jabalpur. Notice of meeting, petitionersubmits, ought to have been issued by the Presiding Officer. The Notice of the meeting has been issued as per order and direction of Presiding Officer by CMO...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »