Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ68MP; 1987MPLJ190
ORDERS. Awasthy, J.1 In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order No. PFC /3631/Rec/MP/ XVII / E.III / 90Q, dated 1.6.1983, passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mad-hya Pradesh, Indore (Annexure-F) and order No. PFC / 3651 / MP / Rec / XVII/E.1 / 3780, dated 27.8.1984, passed by the said Commissioner (Annexure-L): as also section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has been alleged to be ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Rosy Dyers and Dry Cleaners, Bhopal, with its head office at Itwara and branches at Ghoda Nakkas and Peergate, Bhopal. It is no longer in dispute that there are 18 regular employees of the petitioner in the aforesaid establishments collectively; and Hakeemud-din and Ahmad Quraishi, who are Darner and Dyer, respectively,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP61; 1963CriLJ187
Naik, J. 1. A notice was issued to the non-applicants, Shri R. K. Karanjfa, Shri Sitaram B. Kolpe, and Sardar Balwant Singh, to show cause why they should not be convicted for contempt of Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The notice was issued at the instance of the original petitioner, Deo Ki Nandan Bhargava, who died during the pendency of these proceedings. The petition is now being prosecuted by Smt. padmavati Bhargava, his widow, by leave of this Court.2. Non-applicant No. 1 is the editor, publisher and printer of the English Weekly 'Blitz' published from Bombay, non-applicant No. 2 is a special correspondent of the daily newspaper 'Press Journal' also published from Bombay; and non-applicant No. 3 is a special correspondent of the daily newspaper 'Hitavada' published from Nagpur.3. The complaint against the non-applicants is that In the issue of 'Blitz' dated 25-3-1961, a news item appeared under the caption: 'Who set communal fires abl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR521]; (2002)IVLLJ191MP
S.S. Jha, J.1. Petitioner have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the direction of reinstatement of respondent No. 1.2. Respondent No. 1 Bhagwan Das was serving as Helper. Respondent No. 1 was served with a charge-sheet dated October 29, 1996 and after enquiry services of respondent No. 1 were terminated vide order dated June 11, 1987. Dispute under Sections 31, 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MPIR Act') was filed before the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 has challenged that the order or termination is void and he prayed that he should be paid entire back wages and he should be treated in service. Labour Court, in its final order dated June 15, 1992, held that the departmental enquiry against the workman is valid but the nature of allegation is such on which punishment of dismissal from service is excessive. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 was that he had abused and threatened...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(1)MPLJ379
ORDERS.K. Kulshreshtha, J.1. This writ petition and the Writ Petitions Nos. 5372/97, 5373/97, 5374/97, 5376/97, 5377/97 and 5379/97 have been filed against the common order dated 30th of October, 1995, passed by the Board of Revenue in Civil Revision Nos. 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 193, 194 and 195-2/92, by which the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. as affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner holding that the petitioners were 'Gond' and as such were entitled to maintain an application under the provisions of Sections 170A and 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), for violation of the provision of sub- section (6) of Section 165 thereof.2. The writ petitioner along with Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Bhoopat Raj Singh and Nar Hari Raj Singh (respondents 6, 7 and 8) are residents of village Tarapur, Tehsil and District Raigarh and claim to be agriculturists having acquired the lands from their ancestors. They filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ259MP; 1996(0)MPLJ869
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The two petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in M.P. No. 1653 of 1994 has prayed for quashment of the order dated January 10, 1994 of penalty (Annexure P-15) passed by the Acting Chairman and Managing Director, whereby the petitioner who was working as Deputy Marketing Manager, was reduced from his substantive grade of Rs. 3700-5900 to Rs. 3100- 5100 with effect from January 10, 1994, as a consequence of that an order dated February 3, 1994 (Annexure P-16) was passed not only reducing the petitioner's grade, but the petitioner was redesignated as Senior Marketing Officer with effect from January 10, 1994. Against the order of punishment the petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the appellant authority, the Board of Directors, vide order dated April 19, 1994.3. In M.P. No. 1652 of 1994, the petitioner A.H. Shedge who was working as Senior Marketing Officer, has challenged the order of penalty dated January 10, 1994 (Annexure P-12) pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1963]14STC507(MP)
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. 1, Jabalpur, whereby he overruled the petitioner's objection to the effect that he could not be reassessed under Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the new Act). 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer, who carries on the business of selling parts of motor vehicles, typewriters, sewing machines etc. under the name and style of 'Modern Machinery Agency, Katni'. He had furnished in the usual manner his returns for the period 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. Since the Sales Tax Officer did not accept those returns as correct and complete, he issued on 10th March, 1959, a notice in Form XII to the petitioner. In due course, on 23rd May, 1959, the petitioner's sales were assessed to tax under Section 11(4)(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP261; [1961(3)FLR54]
Pandey, J.1. The petitioner, who was removed from service, has challenged the various orders passed in regard to him, on the following grounds :(i) The order of suspension dated 24 Sep-tember 1954 operating retrospectively from 30 November 1950 is bad.(ii) The penalty of removal from service is not one of the punishments prescribed by Rule 12 of the Home Guards Rules, 1947, and could not be awarded.(iii) Suspension is one of the punishment enumerated in Rule 12 of the Home Guards-Rules, 1947. The petitioner was in suspension from 30 November 1950 to 11 June 1956. Since the petitioner was already suspended as a measure of punishment, he could not be punished twice for the same fault by removing him from service.(iv) The petitioner's appeal against removal from service was pending before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 1956 when the States were reorganised. Since the matter related to property belonging to the Home Guards Organisation at Nagpur and Kamptee now in the State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000MP97
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-5-1988 (Annexure P-1) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandlh.2. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Godawaribai submitted an application under Section 6 of the M.P. Gramln Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) stating therein that her husband Ram Bharos had pledged a golden hasli of about 16 tolas with Shankarlal Patel, who was the original petitioner in this petition before 15-8-1982. It was also stated therein that the respondent No. 2 and her husband both were 'marginal farmers' within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 23-5-1988 held that the respondent No. 2 was holding 1.90 acres of agricultural land and therefore, she was a 'marginal farmer'. He also found that the transaction of pledge had taken place prior to 16-8-1982. He directed Shankarlal Patel to return the golden has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR289]; 2002(2)MPHT70; 2002(1)MPLJ289
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 7-5-99 (Annex. P-l 0), whereby the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service as a measure of punishment. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 22-4-2000 (Annexure P-l3), whereby appeal/review preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by order dated 11-3-97; containing four charges, which are as follows:- Charge No. 1; Dr. (Mrs.) G. Nigam, M.O. attached to the MPEB Hospital, Sarni, had submitted Casual leave application for the period from 4-7-96 to 12-7-96 with permission to avail 13th and 14th July, 96 being Second Saturday and Sunday. She was to join her duty on expiry of leave ie., on 15-7-96. But she failed to join duty at MP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP122; 1985MPLJ786
J.S. Verma, Acg. C.J. 1. The challenge made in this petition is to the constitutional validity of Section 170-A and Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as well as the notification No. F-16-1-81-II-XXV, dated 15th April 1981 (Annexure-A) issued by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. This order shall also dispose of the entire batch of petitions in which the validity of these provisions has been challenged on account of which all these petitions were heard together. 2. The history of legislation together with the relevant provisions may be stated at the outset. The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, came into force with effect from 2-10-1959. Section 165 relates to rights of transfer and in Sub-section (1) it says that a Bhumiswami may transfer any interest in his land subject to the other provisions of this section and the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!