Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.22017 of 2011 M/s Ideal Minerals and another Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioners : Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/ : Shri Ashok Chourasia, Govt. Advocate. State For respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, Advocate. ORDER (07.08.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no.5 revisional authority (Constituted under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (In short the Act) in revision application/file No.16/04/2007-RC-II whereby, dismissing their revision filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 ( in short MCR), the order No.2-64/05/12 dated 27.10.2006, passed by the respondent no.1 State of M.P., allowing the respective applications...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Sustained industrial growth is possible in a country with an optimum utilization of input. Labour, skilled on/and unskilled is an important nay an inevitable input without which no industry can function. And for better and maximum or the optimum utilization of this manpower harmony between the manpower input and the management which uses this manpower for a better output, is a first and foremost aspect in an industrial fora. Whereas disharmony between these two forces adversely affects the output and the future of industry. Vice versa is true when there is harmony. It is therefore, the workman whose efficiency is paramount to attain optimum. To maintain this efficiency the workman must have the congenial industrial environment. To attain the same, the workman must have the bargaining force without which he is subjected to exploitation. Since individual workman has no bargaining power having any impact. It is the collective bargaining power which is of some importance in the industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR 1 Civil Revision No.1343/2003 Sanjay Dubey ..................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant:Shri Vivek Rusia and Shri Shekhar Sharma , Advocates For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 2. Civil Revision No.640/2005 M/s.Pratibha Construction Co........... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri N.Jauhari, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 3. Civil Revision No.481/2006 Arjun Kumar...................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 4. Civil Revision No.178/2008 Mohd.Shakir Ansari............................ Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 S.A No.440/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.440/1996 APPELLANT : JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. RESPONDENTS : KANHAIYALAL @ KANDHAI AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (02/04/2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996 passed by the District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No.19-A/86 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Panna in Civil Suit No.1- A/79-85 thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant claiming a decree for declaration as owner in possession of house No.53/6 situated in Mohalla Raniganj, Panna as well as for a permanent injunction prohibiting the respondents from demolishing the wall of h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
G.D. Saxena, J. (1) This Appeal is by the appellant-wife against the Judgment dated 25th September, 2010 in C.S.No.26A/10 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.), granting a decree of divorce to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (2) The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife, i.e., the appellant herein, had deserted the respondent and thereby the matrimonial home since September, 1995. It is stated that the marriage was solemnised on 5th May, 1995 as per Hindu (Sikh rights) religion. On or before marriage, the appellant-wife was in a job (O.A. Grade III in District Industry Centre), Vidisha whereas the respondent-husband was working as Civil Engineer in a private Sector at Gwalior M.P. The marriage was duly consummated and one son, namely, Sparsh was born out of their wedlock, who is at prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)MPHT182
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5-7-2005 passed by Ilnd ASJ, Ujjain in S.T. No. 10/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted lor an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under Section 135 of the Electricity Act sentencing him to undergo one year R.I., against which the present appeal has been filed.2. Case of the prosecution was that on 29-11 -2004, Junior Engineer of MPEB along with staff went for inspection, at that time, it was found that appellant was stealing the energy for the purpose of irrigation by running the motor of 3 horse-power. It was alleged that Panchnama was prepared and the electricity equipment from which the electricity was stolen were seized. Upon the complaint of the complainant, case was registered against the appellant at Crime No. 327/2004 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence, appellant was convicted as stated above, against which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. This order shall lead to final disposal of writ petition Nos. 459/2009 – M/s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 460/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 461/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 463/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 464/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 466/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 468/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 470/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 472/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 473/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 474/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 4083/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 4086/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others and 14784/2008 M/s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others as the issue raised in these writ petitions being similar. 2. Issue which crops up for consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1990)ACC520
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.A.No.33 of 1982 The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Smt. Anupama and Ors.as both these appeals are directed against the same award dated 12th October,81 given by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in claim case No. 3 of 1980.2. M.A.No.25 of 82 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas M.A.NO.33 of 1982 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging their liability for the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.3. The facts giving rise to these appeals, which are no longer in dispute and as found proved, may be stated, in brief, thus : B us number CPF9187 is owned by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation, of which on the relevant day of the accident, which took place on 24.6.79, Laxman Rao was the driver in the employment of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation. The said bus was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2(1988)ACC237; 1988MPLJ526
P.D. Mulye, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 33 of 1982 The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Anupama and Ors. as both these appeals are directed against the sami award dated 12th October,'81 given by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 3 of 1980.2. M.A. No. 25 of 82 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas M.A. No. 33 of 1982 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging their liability for the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The facts giving rise to these appeals, which are no longer in dispute and as found proved, may be stated, in brief, thus : Bus number CPF 9187 is owned by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation, of which on the relevant day of the accident, which took place on 24 6-1979, Laxman Rao was driver in the employment of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation. The said bus was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Com...
Tag this Judgment!