Madhya Pradesh Court April 2005 Judgments
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chhindwara Cold Storage Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT402
S.L. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-8-92, passed in Civil Suit No. 8-B/86 on the file of IInd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara.2. In the course of this judgment, parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the Trial Court.3. Plaintiff, Chhindwara Cold Storage Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'the Company') filed a suit against the defendants, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur and State of Madhya Pradesh for recovery of Rs. 22,000/-. It is alleged that plaintiff is a Private Limited Company. Devilal Sharma is the Managing Director of the Company. The plaintiff established a cold storage which is a small scale industry registered with the State Industries Department. Defendant, M.P. Electricity Board supplied electricity to the aforesaid Cold Storage. By inadvertence defendant No. 1, M.P. Electricity Board recovered Rs. 20,304.63 and Rs. 1326.00 more in connection with elect...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Keer Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT147; 2006(1)MPLJ97
Abhay Naik, J.1. The appeal is directed against order dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in M.J.C. No. 5/97, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 1-7-1995, has been rejected.2. It is unnecessary to burden the case with the facts giving rise to the judgment and decree in favour of State Bank of India, except that in Civil Suit No. 96-B/94, the present appellant (defendant therein) was served with summons who participated in the proceedings of the Civil Suit through an Advocate duly engaged by him. He, however, stopped taking part in the proceedings and remained absent. Consequently, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against him on 1st July, 1995.3. The appellant submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside judgment and decree on the ground that he had become 'Sadhu' in February, 1988 and had proceeded on pilgrimage. He came ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Kiran Devi Kailashchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)243; [2006]286ITR612(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of IT Appeal No. 13 of 2001 [CIT v. Kirandevi Kailashchand], as both these appeals involve identical questions of law and secondly, they relate to same assessee, except the difference being that they arise out of two different assessment years.2. This is an appeal filed by the CIT under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 26th Sept., 2000, passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 454 & 455/Ind/1996. This appeal along with other connected one was admitted for final hearing on following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the AO and CIT(A) for both the years when the reference application under Section 256(1) filed on questions of law against the quashing of order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, is still undecided ?'3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. Veena ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Pandu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT261
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the pregnability of the order dated 1-8-1991 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class 2 Betul and order dated 26-9-91 passed in revision by IInd Additional District Judge, Betul, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and affirming the order of Trial Court.2. The defendants/petitioners submitted an application in the Trial Court raising an objection that since earlier suit of plaintiffs was dismissed, the subsequent suit is not maintainable. The objection has been rejected and it was held by the Trial Court that subsequent suit is maintainable. The revision petition filed by the defendants before IInd Additional District Judge, Betul has been rejected by the impugned order.3. The unfolded facts of the case are that plaintiff- Pandu who is respondent No. 1 herein this petition, filed earlier a suit which was registered as Civil Suit Number 126-A/90, h...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Raj Kour Randhawa Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT400
S.K. Pande, J.1. This appeal under Section 454 of Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 24-9-03 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 12/02 whereby truck MP 20-D/7770 has been confiscated.Admittedly, appellant is the registered owner of truck MP 20- D/7770. On 19-3-02 the Truck aforesaid driven by her son Ravinder Singh was stopped by the Police on N.H. 7. The search of truck being conducted, 24 bags containing Ganja were found kept under the Tripal. As such, 692.600 Kgs. Ganja was seized from Ravinder Singh. Completing investigation, Ravinder Singh was prosecuted under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985. In Special Case No. 12/02, vide impugned judgment dated 24-9-03 the Court below recording conviction of Ravinder Singh under Section 8/20 directed confiscation of truck aforesaid.2. Section 60 deals with the confiscation of animals or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Section 60(3) reads as under:'Any animal or conve...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Koushalya Bai Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT257; 2005(4)MPLJ517
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is admittedly second wife of the deceased employee. It is also not in dispute that her marriage was performed with deceased Shri Rambahori during the lifetime of the first wife. First wife had died in the year 1994 and the second marriage was performed in the year 1990.2. Petitioner is claiming family pension after death of her husband namely Shri Rambahori Pyasi. Shri Rambahori Pyasi has died on 17-8-2001. Petitioner has been denied the family pension by the M.P. State Electricity Board. Death cum Retirement Gratuity has been kept in Bank deposit to be paid to the sons of the petitioner on their attaining the age of maturity.3. The question agitated is about the entitlement of the petitioner for pension and gratuity. Family has been defined in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 44 of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules in relation to Govt. servant, which reads thus :-(5) For the purpose of this Rule and Rules 45 and 46 'family' in relation to G...
Tag this Judgment!Hope Textiles Ltd. Vs. Nemichand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR794]
S.K. Gangele, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, filed this petition challenging the order of Industrial Court dated 7.12.2004 passed in C.A. No. 625/2004. By the aforesaid order the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court, partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner, other 42 eases have also been decided by the Court by this order. The petitioner has filed 43 petitions including this one against the common order passed by the Industrial Court with regard to each workman. All these petitions are being decided by this common order.2. Earlier the petitioner-Company was known as Nandlal Bhandari Mills Limited. In the year of 1973 controlling shares of the Company were taken over by Potdar family, thereafter name of the Company has been changed to M/s. Hope Textile Limited. It had number of workers but due to financial constraints the Company declared lay off on 6.6.1986. Thereafter, it applied to the State Government,...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kinetic Honda Motors Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(187)ELT19(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an application made by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Revenue) under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 praying for a direction to the Tribunal (CEGAT) to refer the questions of law to this Court which according to them are said to arise out of the appellate order dated 16-12-1999 No. A/1177-80/99-NB(DB) passed in E/A-724-727/99-NB.2. Heard Shri V. Zelawat, L/C for petitioners and Shri M.P. Devnath with Shri Sanjeev Kohli for respondents.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case we are of the considered opinion that this application deserves to be allowed. In other words we are satisfied that questions of law proposed by the applicants does arise out of the impugned appellate order referred supra and hence being referable questions the same deserves to be referred to this court for answer on merits.4. It is really not necessary for this court to narrate the facts in detail and burden...
Tag this Judgment!Mazdoor Sangh (intuc) and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MPHT16
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Vide order dated 6-10-2004, this Court has passed the order as under :- Shri Moyal contended that in absence of any order under Section 25(O) or 25(N), the workers continue to be in the employment of the Mill even today and are entitled for the wages but looking to the financial difficulties, workers are willing to forego their wages from 1-4-2000 provided they are paid their bonus, leave encashment and salary upto 31-3-2000. It was also contended that financial difficulties is not a defence for the non payment of the wages and other dues payable to the workers. Shri Trivedi is, therefore, granted four weeks time to examine the whole matter and to submit proposal to indicate how the Govt. is going to meet the dues of the workers. In the meanwhile petitioner shall also submits it proposal to the Managing Director of the Shri Sajjan Mills Limited. The Office bearers of the representative Union shall meet the Principal secretary, Commerce and Industry and the Managing...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisilal Vs. State Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR801]; (2005)IIILLJ458MP; 2005(3)MPLJ135
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by Industrial Court, Bhopal reversing the order of Labour Court and dismissing the application filed under Section 31 read with Section 61 of M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act').2. No exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to state that petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Artisan in the Machine Shop/Maintenance Section/Craft Section on January 31, 1980 (Annexure-P-1). In pursuance to the order Annexure-P-1 dated January 31, 1980 the petitioner started discharging his duty. Thereafter by order dated October 30, 1980 (Annexure-P-2) he was removed from the services. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 31 read with Section 61 of the Act before Labour Court praying therein for his reinstatement with full back wages. In the ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »