Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1584
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 227/85, filed by the appellants Shanker Singh and Madrusingh who are also appellants, along with four others in this appeal, preferred against the same judgment.2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 10-5-85 in Sessions Trial No. 23/85, rendered by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore thereby convicting appellant Baliram under Sections. 147 and 302/149 and remaining appellants under Sections. 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life as also Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a direction that these will run concurrently. Co-accused Bhagirath died during the trial.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case at the trial was that the first wife of the deceased Peerasingh was abducted by Bhagirath (now dead) which had led to an incident of assault on Bhagirath by Peerasingh and his companions. Bhagirath sustained injuries in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT16
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal was originally preferred by Mohd. Sayed and Smt. Shamina Sultan. Both of them are dead and the present appellants are their legal representatives. Earlier this appeal was finally heard on 7-10-2002, and was decided on 9-l-2003.During the course of hearing, when this appeal was heard earlier, neither any application was filed by the present appellants for their substitution, nor it was brought in our notice that both the appellants were dead, when the appeal was heard. After the pronouncement of the judgment the present appellants by filing an application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9of the Code of Civil Procedure, sought permission for their substitution. The said application was registered as M.C.C. No. 262/2003 and was decided and allowed by this Bench on 21-7-2003. In this manner the present appellants are brought on record in the appeal and as directed in the order dated 21-7-2003, in M.C.C. No. 262/2003, this appeal was re-listed for hearing.2. Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP258
T.N. Singh, J. Yesterday Shri Lokendra Gupta was not before me. He is in this appeal respondent No. 2 and today he has argued his own case. Yesterday I heard Shri R. D. Jain, appearing for respondent No. 1, who fought valiently a lost cause. It was Yesterday itself that I told him about Gaurishankar, AIR 1927 PC 246, star which shines on Indian Judicial firmament. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not overruled that and has, on the other hand, reinforced that law --embodying a very fundamental principle of Hindu Law. 2. Today Shri J. P. Gupta who apears for the appellants, has tried to improve upon the performance of counsel of the appeal to which reference I had made in yesterday's order. In Vasudco v. Tikaram (F. As. Nos. 25/84 and 8/91 decided on 5-8-1991), as noted yesterday in this matter, I applied Gaurishankar (supra) and ordered retrial of the suit framing a specific issue, heeding the clear, unambiguous and clarion call of Gaurishankar (supra). On factual aspects, this appeal asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ515MP; 1996(0)MPLJ262
S.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P-5) of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') directing the petitioners to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs. 8,625/-to respondent No. 4 earned by him during the period of his employment. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, vide order dated September 6, 1991 (Annexure P-6) passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 6/BPL/90.2. Facts giving rise to the petition are thus - The petitioner is an Engineering Industry engaged in manufacturing and sale of insulated material, Fibre Glass Engineering components etc. Respondent No. 4 was employed as a workman, who vide order dated August 2, 1986, was dismissed, after holding a domestic enquiry from service on a charge of misconduct under Clause 12(1)(m) of the Statutory Standing Orders, framed under M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2006]69SCL28(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a company petition filed by two companies known as M/s. Siddharth Soya Products Pvt. Ltd. (for short hereinafter called as transferee company) and M/s. Nobal Grain India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as transferor company). It is filed under Section 391, read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, for according sanction by the court for the Scheme of arrangement/amalgamation/merger whereby entire business of manufacturing, processing and refining Soyabean Oil Seeds and other vegetable oil and other business as set out in detail in memorandum and Article of Association as also in scheme (Exhibit - A) of Transferor company shall amalgamate/Merge/Vest with the Siddharth Soya Products Private Limited ie., Transferee Company on the terms set out in the Scheme of amalgamation (Exhibit - A).2. The Scheme of Amalgamation is sought to strengthen and consolidate the position of the amalgamated/resulting Company which will enable the amalgamated/resulting Company to parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.8369of2013 7.5.2013 Smt.IndiraNair,learnedSeniorCounselwithShriShoab Khan,learnedcounselforthepetitioner. Heardonadmission. Orderdated26.3.2013,passedbytheAppellateAuthority underPaymentofGratuityAct,1972isbeingassailedvidethis writ petition; whereby order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the ControllingAuthoritydirectingthepetitionerhereintodisburse thegratuityduetotherespondentworkmanhasbeenaffirmed. Respondent,employedasMatewiththepetitionerretired w.e.f.30.6.2011.HewasdeniedthepaymentofGratuityunder thePaymentofGratuityAct,1972,ashewasunabletofurnish formP.S.16alongwithnoduescertificatewhichhaswithheld astherespondentworkmandidnotvacatetheaccommodation providedbythemanagement. Thenonpaymentofgratuityledtheworkmantofilean applicationunderSection7(4)of1972Act,readwithRule10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 claiming Rs.5,85,900/. Controlling Authority by order dated 11.5.2012 directed theemployer(petitioner)topaytheamountofRs.5,85,900/to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Second Appeal No.283/1999 (Smt. Neelam Devi versus Anant Pal Singh and another) 27.02.2013 Heard Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1998 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal No.8-A/95 arising out of an exparte judgment and decree dated 17.11.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-2, Niwari District Tikamgarh in Civil Suit No.42-A/94. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.1 through his grand-father respondent No.2, had filed a suit for declaring him to be an heir of the deceased Mahendra Verma and for further declaration that he was entitled to all service arrears on account of his death. The suit was opposed by the appellant by filing a written statement by stating that she was the second wife of the deceased Mahendra Verma and therefore, she was also entitled to share in his ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR871]
ORDERJ.K. Maheshwari, J.1. By filing this petition a blind citizen has knocked the door of this Court for enforcement of the mandate of law known as 'Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995' ( for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking protection of the umbrella of justice delivery system. The non-enforcement of the provisions of the said Act in true spirit and sense is writ at large to establish social justice envisaged under the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner had passed intermidate 10+2, B.A.and M.A.in Political Science in first class in 1997, and secured second position in the merit list of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. Being a blind he has filed disability certificate showing 100% absence of sight. It is further pleaded that the M.P.Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement for recruitment to various posts, wherein he had appeared and got selected in preliminary and mains exam. But i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP222; 1973MPLJ650
R.J. Bhave, J.1. The defendant had purchased a house from the plaintiff's father and was put in possession thereof. The plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the defendant was without legal necessity. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed possession of the house. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the property in question being coparcenary property and there being no legal necessity, the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. A decree for possession of the suit property was. therefore, granted in favour of theplaintiff. The defendant thereupon preferred this appeal. When the case came before a learned Single Judge (Bishambhar Dayal, C. J.) it was urged that the defendant being a bona fide purchaser for value from ostensible owner, the sale should have been upheld and that, in any case, the Courts below should have given a direction to the effect that'the execution of the decree in so far as it directs the purchaser to deliver possession of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(MP)26; [2004]268ITR244(MP); 2004(1)MPHT438; 2004(1)MPLJ589
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.:1. The following two questions have been referred by the Division Bench for adjudication before the Larger Bench :--'(1) In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Assessee was entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244(1-A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the A.Ys. 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessce was entitled to the benefit of interest under Section 244(1-A) on refunds in respect of any amount of tax including self assessment tax paid or given credit in assessment completed after 31-3-1975?'2. The facts which are essential to be stated in both the cases are as under:--(A) Income Tax Reference No. 35/1994 : (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur v. Udhoji Shri Krishandas, Satna) In this reference assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1976-77. M/s Udhoji Shri Krishna Das Agarwal is a reg...
Tag this Judgment!