Madhya Pradesh Court July 2003 Judgments
Gous Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Anwar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2005MP1; 2003(4)MPHT229
ORDERS.K. Pande, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 26-8-2000, passed by 12th ADJ, Jabalpur in M.C.A. No. 59/98 affirming the order dated 3-9-98, passed by 11th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No. 77/97 whereby application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC filed by the applicant has been dismissed.2. Plaintiff/non-applicants - Awadh Bihari and Govind instituted C.S. No. 325-A/94 in the Court of Civil Judge seeking eviction of tenant/defen-dant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 on grounds under Section 12(1)(a)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for convenience). The suit was decreed ex pane vide judgment dated 6-10-94. Defendant/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 thereafter filed application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree in C.S. No. 325-A/94. Plaintiff/non-applicants Awadh Bihari, Govind Soni, vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 4-3-96 sold the suit house to the applicant Gous Mohd. and sp...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT120; 2003(4)MPLJ395
S.S. Jha, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has held that special pay paid to the employee shall be counted for calculating the average pay to determine the pension.2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while delivering the judgment, Tribunal has lost sight of the explanation appended to Rule 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Pension Rules'). He submitted that this amendment dated 6-11-1995 has been brought into force with retrospective effect from 1-1-1986. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the word 'emoluments' occurring in Rule 30 of the Pension Rules is defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules. He submitted that after the amendment under the provisions of F.R. 9 (21) (a) (i), special pay is not included in the definition of 'Pay' for the purpose of calculating the pension. In support of his contention, Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT309
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing orders (P-8 and P-10). Petitioner's removal has been ordered under Section 55 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. Order (P-8) was passed by the M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, respondent No. 2 on 23-12-2002. Petitioner preferred a petition against the order under Section 59 of the Adhiniyam. Petition has been dismissed as per order (P-10) on 28-3-2003. It appears that complaint against the petitioner was made regarding demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2500/- from Shri Gancsh Sahu who was running a flour mill. The complaint was made to Lokayukta, of which enquiry was ordered. It appears that during the course of enquiry petitioner took the defence that on the dale in question, i.e., 4-6-2001, there was death in relation of the petitioner. Thus, his presence at the flour mill was not possible. On the basis of submitting death certificate of Smt. Swaroopi Bai, a show-cause notice (P-6) was issued to th...
Tag this Judgment!Seeta Charan Banwari Vs. M.P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT232; 2003(4)MPLJ274
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 5-2-2002 (Annexure P-14) by which it has been held by the Managing Director that the petitioner is not entitled to any salary from 4-12-1987 to 15-9-1996 on the principle of 'no work no pay'. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in M.P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam as an Accountant. He was removed from service by order dated 2-12-1987 after departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal against this order before the Chairman of the Nigam. He set aside the order of removal and remanded the matter back for fresh departmental enquiry. The Managing Director of the Nigam filed Writ Petition No. 2684 of 1988 before this Court against the order of the Chairman and obtained a stay order on 6-8-1988 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner submitted an application for vacating aforesaid order but it was rejected by this Court. The writ petition wa...
Tag this Judgment!Umashankar Tiwari Vs. Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT480; 2003(3)MPLJ464
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 20-10-1997 (Annexure P-3) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated labour. He worked for more than 240 days in that position in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. He worked for about two years. There is no appointment letter showing the terms of appointment.3. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed before the year 1994 and he was working in Raja Gokul Das Dharamshala from 1-2-1996. The termination is illegal.4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged on muster roll without any sanction or permission of the competent authority. There is no work for the daily rated employees in the Municipal Corporation. The establishment expenditure of the Corporation has exceeded the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Chokhelal Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT484; 2003(4)MPLJ288
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondentNo. 4 and order dated 17-5-2000 (Annexure P-2) of the respondent No. 1 byvirtue of which the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as PhysicalTraining Instructor. That post was later on redesignated as Sports Officer. Thedate of birth of the petitioner is 15-3-1939. He attained the age of 60 years on15-3-1999. He continued to work as Sports Officer. It is also not disputed thatby M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam,1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') the age of retirement ofteacher has been raised to 62 years. In this Act, definition of 'teacher' has beengiven in the Explanation to Section 2(1-a). That reads : 'for the purpose ofthis sub-rule 'Teacher' means a Government servant by whatever designationcalled, app...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.K. Baratt Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT457; 2004(3)MPLJ467
Dipak Misra, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for declaration of Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, as ultravires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts which are essential to be adumbrated for disposal of the writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was the owner of immovable properties situated at Napier Town, Baratt Road, Jabalpur and after his death the property was inherited by the petitioner. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') came into force in the year 1976. The father of the petitioner filed the return as required under the Principal Act. After due enquiry the competent authority declared 4016.65 sq.m. of the land as surplus and notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) was published. After publication of the notice, as pleaded in the petition, the surplus land vested in the State Government on 25-11-1992. A notice as required unde...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Vs. Chander Mohan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ2124
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 321 of 2000. The appellant met with the road accident on 27.7.2000. As a result of the accident the appellant sustained grievous injuries and remained in the hospital as an indoor patient from 28.7.2000 to 31.8.2000, i.e., a little more than a month. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant his left leg has been amputated above knee joint. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,47,340 to the appellant, who is a hammal by profession.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that looking to the nature and the extent of injury which are duly proved by the medical evidence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly on the lower side. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that looking to the income of the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Jhabbu and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT426
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Accused/appellants Laxman, Hariram, Beni and Jhabbu have preferred the aforesaid appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 22nd January, 1992 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 15/1987. Since all the appeals arise from a composite judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Five persons, namely, Laxman, Hariram, Beni, Jhabbu and Shambhu were tried by the Trial Court. Laxman was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and the other accused persons were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the decision of the Trial Court, Shambhu has died.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that Parwati Bai is the wife of Hariram and was a kept of the deceased Rajjan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the Village Deori near the Old Fort there is one 'Chabutar...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Nalini Chauhan and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT541; 2003(4)MPLJ78
Rajendra Menon, J.1. As common questions are involved in all these petitions and identical grounds have been raised, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake convenience, the facts and documents filed in W.P. No. 1164 of 2002, are being considered for disposal of these cases.2. All the petitioners applied for selection as trainee workers in Ayurved Department in pursuance to advertisement (Annexure P-3). The advertisement was for appointment of Ayurved Women Health Workers (Dhai) in training centres situated at Raoun, District Bhind and Kolaras, District Shivpuri. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance to the advertisement, they submitted their applications along with necessary documents. On receipt of the same, respondents constituted a Selection Committee and on the basis of the merit, the said Committee conducted interview of the candidates and prepared select list and waiting list vide Annexure P-4 and P-5. After selection, vide various or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »