Madhya Pradesh Court September 2002 Judgments
Harish Kumar Ledwani Vs. Smt. Anita Ledwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003MP186b; 2003(3)MPLJ354
V.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-98 in Civil Suit No. 18-A/98 by Additional District Judge, Rewa, dismissing the application of appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.2. Undisputably, the parties were married on 20-3-1991 at Sindhi Colony Satna, according to Hindu rites and customs. They are now living separately since July 1992.3. It was averred by the appellant in his petition that the parties resided in the appellant's house at Rewa for a short period after their marriage. Thereafter, the respondent/wife went to her parents' home with one Parasram, whom she used to address as 'Chacha'. It was alleged that the respondent/wife used to misbehave with and maltreat the old parents of the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband tried to persuade the respondent/wife to properly behave with his old parents, but his ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT394
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue and complete his training as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable 'through eligibility test, physical efficiency test, written test and interview' held at Bhopal from 10-4-2000 to 11-4-2000. He was appointed as a Constable by order dated 10-6-2000 (Annexure P-2) by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was asked to join at CISF Recruitment Training Centre, Badwaha, District Khargone on 18-6-2000 for training for 11 months. The petitioner submitted his joining report in the training centre on 18-6-2000. He was not permitted to continue his training from 28-6-2000. No written order was passed cancelling his appointment. The petitioner was not given anything in writing disclosing the reasons for discontinuance of his training...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MPHT399
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 10-1-2000 and 15-10-1990 by which the respondents have refused to grant 'disability pension' to the petitioner.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in defence services from 25-11-1982 to 26-24990. For sometime he was posted on high altitudes. He was diagnosed by the Medical Authorities as a case of Depression (300-4) and placed in medical category EEE (Psychological). The disability was to the extent of 30%. According to the respondents 'the invalidment is not attributable to military exercise and does not fulfil the following condition, namely, it existed before and has remained aggravated thereby' and therefore it was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 16-8-1990 (Annexures P-2 and R-3) that the disability pension is not admissible to him. The petitioner made several representations to show that the disease was attributable to milita...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Shri Q.M. Qureshi English Coach ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR90]; 2002(4)MPHT389; 2003(1)MPLJ497
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 17-4-1985 of the Labour Court, Jabalpur, by which the termination of services of the respondent No. 1 has been declared to be illegal and he has been reinstated with full backwages. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1, Q.M. Qureshi was appointed as a Clerk in Madhya Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Lamta Project Division, Balaghat on 22-11-1976 and his services were terminated on 23-2-1980. He was working as a Clerk during this period. No charge-sheet was issued against him nor any departmental enquiry was conducted. He was not paid any retrenchment compensation on termination of his services. 3. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the Labour Commissioner was not competent to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner-Corporation is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act...
Tag this Judgment!National thermal Power Corporation Vs. K.K. Shrivastava and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1065]; (2003)IILLJ1001MP; 2003(2)MPHT175; 2003(2)MPLJ122
ORDERS.L. Jain, J. 1. Undaunted by the failure before the Labour Court, Sidhi, in Case No. 8/94, MPIR, before the Industrial Court, in Appeal No. 501/97, MPIR and before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3956 and 3945 of 1999, the appellants have filed these Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 373 and 372 both of 2002, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 3956/99 and 3945/99.2. Both the appeals referred to above, i.e., L.P.A. No. 373/2002 (National Thermal Power Corporation v. K.K. Shrivastava and Ors.) and L.P.A. No. 372/2002 (National Thermal Power Corporation v. D.K. Mishra and Anr.) are being decided by this judgment, since common order was passed by the learned Single Judge and common questions of law and fact are involved therein.3. Reference is being made to the facts in L.P.A. No. 372/2002. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 31 (3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay and Jeetu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2218
ORDERUma Nath Singh, J.1. This criminal revision impugns the order dated 5-9-2002 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 19/2001, framing charge against the applicants under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC.2. The impugned order of the learned Judge is a reasoned order and he has mentioned that there was an exhortation to kill the complainant; that, but for the arrival of two Police Personnel namely Narayan Prasad Yadav and Anil Kumar Maurya, applicants would not have stopped the assaults and ran away from the place of incident; that the accused/applicants were duly armed with weapons to cause assaults in a concerted manner; and that they caused a serious injury damaging the left eye of the applicant. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (AIR 2001 SC 40 : (2001 Cri LJ 124) has laid down the ratio that the High Court should not quash the charges unless the case happens to be an exceptional case. Furt...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Grover Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT565
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the action of the respondents in not issuing the tender documents as per Orders (P-5), dated 11-5-2002 and (P-6), 26-4-2002. Petitioner preferred appeals that have also been disallowed as per order (P-9), dated 14-6-2002 and (P-16), dated 16-8-2002 passed by respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner submits that petitioner is a reputed engineer and a recognized contractor in the field of construction. He is registered with thePublic Works Department of Govt. of M.P. as a contractor of A-5 class which is of super special class (hereinafter referred to as 'SS') that is the one which is of unlimited monetary limit. Petitioner submits that he has successfully executed a number of big works and is, therefore, equated with construction legends like M/s. Larson & Tubro Ltd., M/s. Ircon International Ltd. and M/s. Simco Birla Ltd., etc. 3. In the month of January, 2002, the respondent No. 3 Chief Engineer, Head Quarters, Jabalpur ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshchandra Vs. Rookumaribai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC195
A.K. Gohil, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2000 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground that the same is barred on the principle of res judicata. This appeal is barred by 24 days. The appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. Heard on M(o)P No. 1050/2000 ah application for condonation of the delay. The appellant has filed this appeal on 3.10.2000. In the application for condonation of the delay, the submission of the appellant is that he applied for certified copy on 12.9.2000, after the period of expiry of limitation. The copy was supplied on 30.9.2000. In the application the appellant has mentioned that the Counsel for the appellant Mr. K.C. Nahar informed him that the period of limitation for filing appeal is 60 days. Therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. The learne...
Tag this Judgment!Yusufkhan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MPHT42
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. In our country to have our own house is virtually a dream at least for Classes III and IV employees. The State Govt. in the year 1996 liberalized grant of advances to employees from their GPF A/cs., but unfortunately these teachers have been put to trial though they have taken advances as per GPF Rules.By this common order Criminal Revision No. 434/2002 (Laxminarayan Tiwari v. State); Criminal Revision No. 435/2002 (Kailashchandra v. State); Criminal Revision No. 436/2002 (Narayan v. State); Criminal Revision No. 506/2002; in all these revisions applicants are teachers and in Cr. R. No. 537/2002 (Radhakant v. State); Cr. R. No. 538/2002 (Radhakant v. State); Cr. R. No. 539/2002 (Radhakant v. State); Cr. R. No. 540/2002(Radhakant v. State) and Cr. R. No. 541/2002 (Radhakant v. State) wherein applicants are Block Education Officers, are also being disposed of. Accountant Keshav Joshi has not filed any revision against the impugned order.2. The aforesaid Criminal Re...
Tag this Judgment!Raghav Chandra and ors. Vs. Smt. Tarvinder Kaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2205; 2003(1)MPHT151
ORDERNarain Singh `Azad', J.1. The petitioners seek quashment of Criminal Case No. 66/2000, pending against them in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur, wherein, cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 395, 448 and 427 of the IPC is taken, on the private complaint filed by the respondent.2. As per the complaint, on 8th June, 1992, at 10 p.m., petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, who were then posted as Collector, Addl. Collector and City Magistrate, Jabalpur respectively, came to the residence of respondent situated at 1142, Prem Nagar, Jabalpur, along with 200 to 250 Policemen and surrounded the same. At the same time, Sardar Swarnjeet Singh, the elder brother of respondent's husband and Dashmesh Singh Sethi alias Montu, the son of the sister of respondent's husband, who were staying at the residence of respondent, also reached her residence in Premier Padmini Car, belonging to the husband of the respondent, bearing No. MUZ-2067. The police personnels searched this car and then only permitted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »