Madhya Pradesh Court July 2004 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.
Vikram Singh Bhati and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR765]
S.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall govern disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 7456/2003 and 7713/2003 as all the writ petitions involve identical issues of law and facts.2. For the sake of convenience, facts of the present case may be noticed. Petitioner No. 1 Vikram Singh Bhati was given appointment vide order dated 10.3.1989 on the vacant post of Peon in the pay-scale of Rs. 725-900/-. The initial appointment was for a period of 89 days. Petitioner No. 2 Kailash Singh Kachhawa was given appointment vide order dated 2.5.1990 on the post of Peon on the contingency establishment as per the rate fixed by the Collector. His appointment was also for 89 days. The said appointment was renewed from time to time. By order dated 12.8.1992, petitioner No. 1 was given appointment on the contingency establishment and it was mentioned in the order that he would be entitled to count his seniority from 10.8.1992. A similar order was also passed in favour of the petitioner No. 2. By order dated 9.10.1995, bo...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hashiboo Nisha and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT463; 2004(4)MPLJ159
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the award dated 18-7-1991 passed by the District Judge, Mandla.2. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was referred by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Mandla on the application being submitted by Bashi Ahmad, whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 5.3. The Court below issued notice to the Collector, however, since no appearance was made, the Court below proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.4. Under the Municipal limits of Nainpur the land in question was acquired by the Irrigation Department of State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of its 'Thawar Pariyojna'. The disputed land which is 2.14 acre in area was acquired. On going through the award of the Court below, it is gathered that on account of mutual agreement the Bhumiswami of the land in question agreed for the acquisition and by keeping final consideration of the la...
R.P. Chitrakar Vs. M.P. Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT255
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This appeal is filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent assailing order of learned Single Judge dated 23-3-1997 in M.P. No. 1234 of 1984 dismissing the writ petition.2. The factual matrix of the case necessary for deciding this appeal is that appellant in the year 1954 passed his 2 year Diploma Certificate Course in Electrical Engineering from the Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Rewa. Appellant approached to respondent to consider his case for the promotion as Assistant Engineer treating Diploma Certificate equivalent to 3 year Diploma awarded by Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education. The respondent turned down prayer of appellant, which order was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the matter was enquired at the level of Director, Technical Education and he opined that 2 year Diploma awarded by Lok Shiksha Vibhag, Rewa in 1954 to the appellant is not recognised as equivalent to the 3 year Diploma Course of Madhya Pradesh Board of Techni...
Vithal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT10; 2004(4)MPLJ298
S.L. Kochar, J.1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 21-6-2004, rendered by XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 217/2004; arising out order dated 7-4-2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 6249/95 thereby finding the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. The prosecution case Multum in Purvo is that on 18th May, 1995 in the night at 1.30 p.m. from Sainath Home Industries of the applicant. Food Inspector, Prabhakar Kulkarni collected sample of chilli powder. After completing the procedure of taking sample, the same was sent to Public Analyst, Bhopal. The office of the local self authority has received report (Ex. P-13) and covering letter (Ex. P-12) proved by Food Inspector (P.W. 1). According to this report, sample was below pr...
Sushila Kurnawat Vs. Rajesh Kurnawat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC238
ORDERA.K. Awasthy, J.1. The appellant/petitioner has filed the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Hindu Marriage Case No. 14/02 whereby the petition for divorce filed on the ground of desertion was dismissed.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in-between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized at Nagda, District Ujjain according to the Hindu rites and customs on 26.5.1983 and that the spouses have no issue from the wedlock. It is also a common ground that before filing the petition on 9.5.2002 the petitioner has sent the notice Ex. P/l to the wife and the wife has sent the reply of the notice which is Ex. D/l.3. The case of the petitioner is that after his marriage in 1983 the wife has lived only for 2 days in the matrimonial house and in spite of his repeated efforts to bring back his wife, the wife has refused to live wit...
Prestigious Vs. M.P. Rural Road Development
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP55
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. As common questions are involved, the order in this petition shall govern the disposal of writ petitions No. 8541/03, 8571/03, 8622/03, 8652/03, 8734/03, 8740/03, 8962/03, 9041/03, 39/04, 461/04, 645/2004 and 1196/2004.2. Petitioners in all these petitions are establishments carrying out activities of construction work for various departments of the State Government or the authorities, who are arrayed as respondents in this petition. Petitioners have been granted contract in accordance with the tenders submitted by them.3. According to the petitioners, for the purpose of executing the work of construction awarded to them petitioners are required to use certain minor minerals like sand, holders, gitti etc. which they have purchased them from the suppliers of these materials and the suppliers in turn have purchased from various mine owners and quarry owners. Grievance of the petitioners are that while settling the bills of the petitioners respondents are insisti...
M.C. Mittal Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR127]; 2004(4)MPHT183; 2004(4)MPLJ87
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. These are the two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1-6-2002 (Annexure P-l) by which his services have been terminated. He has claimed reinstatement and arrears of salary.2. It is not in dispute that petitioner M.C. Mittal was working as Training Officer in Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur. He was transferred from that place to Balaghat by order dated 14-5-1994. He was relieved on 31-7-1995. He did not join his duties at Balaghat for 2 years, nine months and seven days. He joined at Balaghat on 8-5-1998. A departmental enquiry on two charges was initiated against the petitioner on 6-5-1999. A copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure R-l. A detailed imputation of misconduct along with a list of documents and a list of witnesses was supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26-5-1999. A copy of that reply is Annexure R-2. An enquiry officer was appointed to hold the departmental enquiry. D...
Upica Limited Vs. Tekchand Keshwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT248; 2004(3)MPLJ416
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. This is a revision filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the order dated 28-6-2003 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') in Case No. 60/RCA/92.2. In brief the facts are that the respondent/landlord had filed an application before the Authority seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant stating therein that he is a retired Govt. servant and he bonafidely requires the suit shop No. 16 situated at ward No. 27 Guru Teg Bahadur, Roshanpura, Bhopal given on rent @ 2500 p.m. to the petitioner for starting his own business and for this he has no other suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in occupation in the city of Bhopal.3. In reply the petitioner/tenant stated that initially the suit shop was rented for Rs. 1500/- per month thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- in the year 1985 then after three years w.e.f. 1-12-1988 it was enhanced ...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Om Prakash Porwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN281(MP)
ORDERAM. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by the revenue (Income Tax Department) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order, dated 10-4-2003, passed by ITAT in IT (SS) A. No. 27/Ind/2002.2. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under section 260A of the Act that being the prerequisite for admission of appeal.3. Heard Shri AP Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that two questions proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of subsantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Act.5. The issue relates to grant of certain deletion which were made by the assessing officer in the course of block asses...
Ramashray Vs. Smt. Kusum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT488; 2004(3)MPLJ434
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard on the question of admission.2. This is a revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order 5-2-2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 146-A/03 by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for review of order dated 5-8-2003 passed on an application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant No. 1/respondent whereby the Trial Court stayed the plaintiffs suit.3. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. 146-A/2003 for possession and mandatory injunction in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Rewa. In the said suit the petitioner/plaintiff prayed that he purchased Khasra No. 44/1 Rakba 8 x 60 sq. ft. from respondent No. 3 Thakurdin and the defendant No. 1 has illegally constructed her house on the said land purchased by him and sought the above r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »