Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT140; 2002(2)MPLJ480
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5279/2000, dated 24-9-2001 allowing the petition and quashing the order dated 17-7-2000 passed in Revision No. R.N./11-1/R/513/93 Board of Revenue, Gwalior (MP) and order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Revision No. 222/A-6/91-92, dated 30th March, 1993 confirming the order of Additional Collector, District Chhattarpur in Revision Case No. 33/A-6/89-90, dated 28-12-1991 were restored.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent Budhuwa Chamar belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was landless person. He was allotted a piece of land on 3-11-1973 by Patta (Annexure A-1) under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The patta was granted by Tehsildar, Laundi, District Chhattarpur. It was a temporary patta. The conditions No. 7(1) and (4) of this Patta prohibit transfer of the land granted by the patta. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP30; 1981MPLJ117
B.C. Varma, J.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of sale and manufacture of textiles. It has textile mills at Dhamnod Road. Ratlam, within the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Ratlam (respondent No. 1), established under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), For the purpose of manufacture of textiles, the petitioner purchases unginned cotton from agriculturists. This cotton is then ginned, pressed and spinned and is then finally converted into finished product, viz., the cloth. All this process is undertaken by the petitioner in the Mills. The cloth is then marketed through dealers. 'Cotton' is one of the commodities included in the Schedule to the Act and is admittedly an 'agricultural produce' within the meaning of term as defined under Section 2(1)(a) as meaning all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, apiculture, pisciculture, or forest. The petitioner has obtained a licen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2623
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 122/87.2. Shri Ranjan Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the alleged offence was committed on 6-4-86 much prior to coming into force the provision of law contained in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304B, IPC is the new provision of law and it was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by amendment Act No. 43/86 and it came into force on 9-11-86 and it has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Banerjee is well founded.3. It is well settled that a person cannot be made an accused for an offence which was not an offence under the law when the alleged offence was committed.4. In the instant case the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3484
D.P.S. Chauhan. J.1. A criminal case No. 228/82 was instituted upon a complaint filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Spcical Area Development Authority. Chitrakut before the Judicial Magistrate Satna, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 528/84 and was dismissed On merit by the Judicial Magistrate First Glass Satna vide the impugned order dated 21-6-1965. Against this order, as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr. P.C. the Special Area Development Authority Chitrakoot applied for special leave to appeal to this Court which was granted by this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 3199/85 on 17-1986 where upon the present appeal was filed and was admitted by the Additional Registrar of this Court on 5-1-1987.2. The complaint was filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Special Area Development Authority Chitrakut. It was a cyclostyled one and in Para 2. it is stated that the accused had constructed a new house on Chitrakoot Pili Rothi Marg without obtaining the permission fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ488MP; 1989MPLJ797
ORDER1. S. K. Dubey, J:- The petitioner was employed by M.P.S.R.T. Corporation, Indore in its Ratlam Depot The petitioner was dismissed on September 1, 1983 from service without any enquiry. The petitioner filed an application under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') against his dismissal in the Labour Court, Indore. The respondent No. 2 denied the allegations made in the application, but stated that under Standard Standing Order 11(a) and (b) the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. The Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after recording of the evidence held that the termination of the services was an illegal retrenchment and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated August 27, 1984, the respondent-Corporation tiled an appeal before the Industrial Court. After hearing the appeal, the Industrial Court allowed it and set aside the order of reinstatement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ15
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. This reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (for short, the 'CPC'), is made by Civil Judge, Class I, Shivpuri, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1/1978, whereby the Court, on its own motion, entertained a doubt and after drawing up a statement of facts of the case, has referred the following three points for decision of this Court : -v D;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk lquokbZ dhtkus okyh dfFkr vihy dsoy in uke xyr fy[k nsus ls vihy dk fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k voS/k,oa 'kwU; gks tkrk gSc D;k O;ogkj U;k;ky; oxZ 1] /kkjk 341] naMizf;k lafgrk vkSj /kkjk 1952] naM izf;k lafgrk ds varxZr vij ftyk U;k;/kh'k;k vij l= U;k;k/kh'k vFkok nksuks dks iz'kklfud :i ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; jgrk gSl D;k dfFkr iz'kuksa ds mkj ds voyksduesa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk vkijkf/kd iqujkosnu 85@1979 ,oa vkijkf/kdiqujh{k.k ekad 39@1979 esa ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; bl U;k;ky; ij 1980 tcyiqj ykWtuZy i`'B 146] xuir yky fo:) yk;d pUn ds voyksdu esa cU/kudkjd jgrs gSa 2. Before dealing with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2821
ORDERK.M. Pandey, J.1. The applicant in this case prays for bail on the ground that he was not supplied copies of the charge-sheet and other papers in accordance with the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. within 90 days with the result that he is entitled to bail and he has relied on 1988 Jab LJ 444 : (1989 Cri LJ 1553) for it.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is involved in a case Under Section 302, 394/34, I.P.C. along with co-accused, namely, Ram Avtar and Chhidda. He was taken in custody on 2-8-91 and copy of the charge-sheet was not supplied to the applicant in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. No doubt in this case challan was filed within 95 days but the copies of the challan were supplied after two days of the expiry of the 90 days.3. The applicant contended before the Sessions Judge that since the period of 90 days expired and the applicant has not been supplied with copies of the charge-sheet, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1992)ILLJ362MP; 1992(0)MPLJ214
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Persistant denial for long seven years of her claim for family pension made the desparate widow letter- petition this Court a year ago. Gopal, her husband, died on April 21, 1979. Then began her struggle for survival to feed and rear five minor children, besides nursing one in the womb and keeping her own body and soul together.2. Glimpses of her agonising travail came to be noticed by this Court when her petition dated October 4, 1989 was listed on November 11, 1989. Office was directed to issue notices to respondents 1 and 2 (Secretary, M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter, MPEB or Board), Jabalpur and Divisional Engineer, MPEB, Gwalior respectively) and respondent No. 3, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore. To expedite disposal, the notices were made returnable in four weeks and were directed to be served on Standing Counsel for the respondents - Shri K.N. Gupta and Shri N.P. Mittal, respectively. On January 16, 1990, Shri Gupta filed a joint return of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ280
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present appeal filed by Pooran Singh Rajput is against the judgment and decree dated 30 10-1993 passed by First Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 5-A/91 is admittedly beyond time provided for filing the first appeal in the High Court under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is beyond time by 30 days. The appeal so filed was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act. It was not supported by any affidavit.2. In view of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3-A of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, the question which cropped up for consideration is 'whether the appeal as filed, was competent?' Rule 3-A of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code is as extracted below :-'3-A. Application for condonation of delay. - (1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT418; 2001(2)MPLJ361
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dated 21-6-1999, in Case No. 37/86-87/907, whereby the Authority directed that the tenant (non-applicant before the Authority) shall handover the vacant possession of the suit-property to the landlady/applicant, within a period of two months, failing which, it is open for the landlady/applicant to get the recovery of the possession, in accordance with law. It was further directed that the tenant/non- applicant shall pay the rent atthe rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the landlady/applicant till the date of handing over the possession. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Authority also directed the payment of Rs. 9,600/- to be made to the tenant/non-applicant, as compensation, by the landlady/applicant, at the time of taking over the possession from the tenant.2. The brief facts giving rise to the case arc that the landlady/applicant has a non-residential accommod...
Tag this Judgment!