Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ648MP; 1991(0)MPLJ284
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Writ of prohibition/mandamusis prayed by petitioner to restrain Union of India and others from pursuing a misconceived proceeding at a forum of incompetent jurisdiction, to nip in the bud the mischief complained.2. Facts of the case for disposal of the instant petition are few and admitted and those we state at the outset. Petitioner has been in the service of the Central Railways and during the relevant period he was posted at Gwalior Railway Station as Travelling Ticket Examiner. During the period, 2.1.1987 to 10.11.1987, it is alleged, he committed certain fiscal irregularities and an order was accordingly made for deduction from his salary of certain amount. That order was challenged under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, P.W. Act) in Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior. On 11.10.1989 directions were made by that Court in those proceedings against authorities concerned that they shall not give effect to the order passed for deduction from petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP340; 1991(0)MPLJ217
S.K. Dubey, J.1. The legal representatives of the purchaser/defendant No. 1 in the suit, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1976, on 9-3-1978, by District Judge, Morena, whereby the suit of the plaintiff, a lunatic, has been decree reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sabalgarh, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1970, decided on 31-1-1976.2. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 22-2-1980 for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:--'Whether by applying the principle of 'feeding the estoppel' as contemplated by Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree for joint possession in as much as the defendant/ purchaser could claim at least the ownership of the undivided interest of Dropadi?'At the time of final hearing an application was filed by the appellants on 4-10-1990 under Section 100(5), Civil Procedure Code, for grant of leave to ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1991MP205; I(1992)DMC96; 1991(0)MPLJ625
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This is an appeal by the wife/respondent under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the decree dated 5-5-89 passed by the Court of Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur, declaring her marriage with the respondent/ wife as nullity under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. By the judgment and decree under appeal, the trial Court accepted the case of the husband/ plaintiff that the wife was suffering from the mental disorder of the type 'schizophrenia' at the time of their marriage.2. The facts not in dispute are that the parties were married on 22-5-1986. They lived together immediately after the marriage between 23-5-1986 and 4-6-1986 for about 12 days in the first instance. Thereafter the wife had gone back to her parents for a few days and they again in the second period lived together between 13-7-86 and 20-7-86 for about seven days. The total stay of the wife with the husband wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ229
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a petition by a Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army challenging the proceedings of Court-Martial initiated against him. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14th December, 1958 as a Second Lieutenant. Gradually he rose to his present substantive rank of Brigadier. From Feb., 1988 to April 1989, he was posted at Agra as Commandant Para Regimental Centre. In April, 1989 he was given acting rank of Major General and was posted as General Officer Commanding Vth Mountain Division in Eastern Command.2. In July, 1989 the petitioner was called to Agra as a witness in Court Martial proceedings going on against one Major Mahapatra. He reported for this purpose on 13-7-1989 at Agra. After the petitioner left Agra in April 1989, Brig. Lognathan took charge as Commandant Para Regimental Centre at Agra. He reported certain financial irregularities and a Court of Enquiry was instituted to enquire into the financial irregularities in the Para Regiment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1105MP; 1992(0)MPLJ334
1. A common order is passed in this appeal and the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 21 and 22 of 1984, in which the employer is common although the employees are different and common questions of law and fact arise. The three Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 26, 1984, passed in Misc. Petitions Nos. 1964, 1965 and 1463 of 1982, Employers In Relation to Anand Cinema, Jabalpur v. Mohan Tiwari and Ors., 1985 MPLJ 765, dismissing the above three Writ Petitions filed by the employer, in the cases of the three employees.2. The learned single Judge upheld the award dated October 22, 1982 of the Labour Court passed in common in the cases of the three employees whereby the action of the employer of terminating the services of the employees was held to be a case of illegal 'retrenchment' hence was ab initio void and the employees entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. 3. In the three L.P.As. common qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP318; 1992(0)MPLJ953
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has made a prayer for directing the respondent No. 2 the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, (in short, the 'Board'), to reconsider the tenders, including that of the petitioner, but excluding the one submitted by the respondent No. 4 M/s D.C. Industrial Plants Services Ltd., (in short, the 'DCIPS'), 'for complete Design, Manufacture, Assembly, Testing at Manufacturer's work, Supply, Handling all along, Erection, Testing and Commissioning etc. of Ash Handling System for Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Station (2 x 210 MW) at Birsinghpur Pali-P.O., Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) as fully described in Tender Specification' in response to its tender notice dated 23-5-1990 (Annexure D), as amended by Addendum dated 4-9-1990 (Annexure F); after quashing its decision dated 14-6-1991 (Board's Annexure 5) for awarding the contract to the respondent No. 4 DCIPS and the Letter of Intent dated 21-6-1991 (Annexure J) issued in its favour.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ834
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. This reference is made by one of us (S. K. . Dubey, J.) while hearing third bail application of the accused/applicant, arrested in connection with an offence under Section 8/18, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the 'Act', or NDPS Act. After hearing counsel, we framed following two questions which arise for our consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case :1. If for offence under Section 18, NDPS Act, charge-sheet is filed 90 days after the arrest of the accused, whether the latter will, as of right, be entitled to get bail from High Court?2. Under what circumstances, the High Court or the 'Special Court' can grant bail under Section 37, NDPS Act, to a person accused of an offence under Section 18 of the said Act if plea is raised by the accused in terms of Section 50 of the said Act?2. On 8-8-1991, the accused was apprehended while travelling in a bus with an attache case, on Agra-Bombay Road, near Shivpuri. From his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1993)DMC243
S.D. Jha, J.1. The appellant-State of M.P. through this appeal against acquittal, challenges judgment dated 29-2-88 delivered by II Additional Sessions Judge Dewas in Sections Trial No. 12 of 1985 (State v. Ashok and others) acquitting the respondents accused of charges under Sections 306, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.2. Accused Ashok is the son of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and accused No. 3 Sharda is mother of accused Ashok. Accused N01. 4, 5 and 6 namely Giru alias Girjesh, Kiran find Madhu alias Munni are sisters of accused Ashok and daughters of accused No. 2 Anokhilal and No. 3 Ms. Sharda. Prosecution case is that deceased Kamini alias Shobha daughter of Surendrakumer (P.W. 1) was married to accused Ashok, on 20-1-84. la the marriage two gold rings, one small almirahs and some utensils were given. According to the prosecution, accused Ashok and his parents and sisters used to harass Kamini laying that gold rings were less in weight and almirah was small. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP184
T.N. Singh, J. 1. This Order shall dispose of two inter linked matters, heard analogously. Both matters arise out of a common order passed on 16-10-1990 in Civil Suit No. 9A of 1990, by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior. By that order, he disposed of simultaneously the application of plaintiff Jyotiraditya Scindia for temporary injunction and the application of the appellant/revisionist, Shrimant Vijaya Raje Scindia, impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 1, for rejection of the plaint. He held that the plaintiff's suit and his application for temporary injunction could not be thrown out at the threshold and that no case was made out to do so under Order VII, Rules 5, 7 and II read with Section 151, C.P.C. In deciding the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, he found a prima facie case made out and held that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff who would suffer irreparable injury if defendant No. 1 was not restrained from alienating, t...
Tag this Judgment!