Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP261
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, preferred by M/s. Dilip Construction Co. from an order of the District Judge, Durg at Rajnandgaon, setting aside an award of the umpire in its favour, directing the payment of a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- by the Hindustan Steel Ltd.2. The material facts, shortly stated, are these. By a contract dated 26th February, 1960, the appellant was employed by the respondent for winning and raising 45,00,000 Cft. of BF grade lime-stone ore from its Nandini Mines, and for transporting and loading the same into wagons at the railway siding of the mines. The deed of contract contained an arbitration clause, and it reads thus:'61. If at any time any question, dispute or difference whatsoever shall arise between the Employer and the Contractor upon or in relation to or in connection with the contract either party forthwith give to the other notice in writing of the existence of such question, dispute or difference and the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP278; 1973MPLJ815
Singh, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner calls into question an order dated 25th March 1973 passed by the Principal, Mahakoshal Arts Mahavidyalaya. Jabalpur, rusticating him for a period of two years. 2. The petitioner was a student of M. A. (Final) Philosophy in Mahakoshal Arts Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur. A complaint was made to the Principal on 21st March, 1973 by one Mrs. Renuka Gupta, a Lecturer in Government Science College, Jabalpur, that the petitioner molested her in the College Library. On this complaint, the Principal on 22nd March, 1973 issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him and to explain why he should not be rusticated from the college on the ground of misconduct. As the petitioner denied the charge, the Principal constituted a committee for conducting an enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner. The committee consisted of Dr. V. S. Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of economics, Professor S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP292
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for redemption and possession of certain suit properties has been dismissed by the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior.2. The plaintiffs are auction-purchasers of the right of redemption in a Court auction sale. This auction sale was held in execution of a money decree of one Mahadeo Prasad against one Roshanlal, the original mortgagor. There were two mortgages in respect of the suit property both in favour of the defendant-respondent. The first was dated 9th September 1939. It was in favour of the defendant-respondent Murlidhar for a consideration of Rs. 7000/. It carried interest at 12 annas per cent per month and was redeemable after two years.The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage. It contained a stipulation that the mortgagee shallbe entitled to recover rents and profits of the mortgaged house and if the rent of the year was insufficient to meet the liability for interest for that period, the unpaid interest shall be capitalised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT200; 2003(1)MPLJ31
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This order will decide Civil Revision Nos. 202/2000 (Sawal Singh v. Smt. Ramsakhi and Ors.), 286/2002 (Anokhi Lal v. Surendra Kumar and Ors.) and 388/2002 (Leela Bai v. Lottan and Ors.) involving same question of law. The facts of the cases are as under :-- (Civil Revision No. 202/2000) The applicant has filed present revision challenging the order dated 18-1-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai, Distt. Sagar in Civil M.A. No. 19/99, by which appeal filed by plaintiffs/respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was allowed and temporary injunction issued against the applicant during the pendency of the suit. (Civil Revision No. 286/2002) This applicant has challenged the order passed by First Civil Judge, Class 2, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No. 170-A/99 by which application filed by non-applicants/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. This revision was filed on 6-2-2002 and admitted on 9-4-2002...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999CriLJ2844
R.P. Gupta, J.1. The appellants challenge their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 67/82 vide judgment dated 24-2-86 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol. The trial Court has found that these accused, in pursuance of their common intention, committed murder of Vipin Shrivastava on 22-6-82 at about 9 p.m. in village Chachai in the area of P.S. Amlai Distt. Shahdol.2. Apart from these appellants there was a fourth accused Ramashraya on whom the charge was of instigating the other accused to commit this murder. He has been acquitted of that charge.3. The prosecution case was that the deceased and the accused were employees of M.P.E.B. at Chachai. The deceased was an activist of I.N.T.U.C. union and the accused were members of Janta Union. Both unions were formed by the employees of the M.P.E.B. The background of this murder was that Vipin agitated in a legal manner against the management on behalf of I.N.T.U.C. union for certain demands of the employees...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. This reference has been made by Ms. Archana Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal against Sub-Inspector Veer Bhan Singh, who misbehaved with her in her duty hours and obstructed her in the course of judicial proceeding.2. The facts as unfolded from the contempt petition are as follows:-On 25.9.2010 about 4:45 P.M., when Ms. Archana Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal was returning to Court from Central Jail, Bhopal, after conducting and presiding over the special bench of Lok Adalat organized in Central Jail, alongwith her staff in her car bearing registration no.UP/70-M-5959, which was having an Amber light and a plate of 'Nyayadhish', and reached near Lalghati Chouraha, Sub-Inspector Veer Bhan Singh came in front of her car and started thumping the bonnet of her car, asked the driver to get down from the car, and stopped the car at Lalghati Square. When Ms. Archana Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class tried to alight from the car to know the reason, Sub-Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR665]; 2003(2)MPHT220
ORDER1. What is challenged in this writ by the petitioner is his transfer order, dated 30-1-2003, whereby he is transferred from 'A' School to 'B' in neighbouring Tehsil. The petitioner is a Teacher.2. I find no case to interfere in the transfer order. It is not challenged on the grounds of malafide. Relying upon some policy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no transfer can take place, nor the petitioner can be transferred. It do not agree to this submission. Firstly, it is the right of the employer to transfer his employee - such right being inherently available with the employer. I is indeed an incidence of service and hence, can be exercised always dependent upon the administrative exigencies. What is relied upon by the petitioner (19-3-2002) filed subsequent to filing of the writ on 6-3-2003 do not in any manner indicate or restrict, or prohibit the rights of an employer to effect the transfer. It only provides the manner in which transfer can be effected and nothin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.13792/2013 (N.S.Rathore versus State of MP and otheRs.23.08.2013 Heard Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Khamariya, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Dhanora District Seoni to Gram Panchayat Bega Pipariya, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadoun. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT460; 2002(3)MPLJ163
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner assails the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 as 'Producer' as employee of Devi Ahilya Vishva Vidhyalaya, R.N.T Marg, Indore, (hereinafter referred to as 'University' for convenience). Mainly the said appointment has been assailed on two grounds.- (i) that improper and suspicious practice has been followed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for appointing respondent No. 3 on contract basis for a period of 90 days and the said appointment-assignment was continued for a period of three years by renewing such contractual relations (ii) that the respondent No. 3 did not hold the necessary qualifications which are required for even appointing a lecturer on temporary/ad hoc basis.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 justified the orders passed in context with such contractual appointment of respondent No. 3 on occasions or for said period of three years. Mainly it was contended that the appointment on contractual basis or otherwise of respondent No. 3 cannot be cat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The petitioners have filed this application for review alleging that the respondent authorities, inspite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P No.9853/2009 dated 24.09.2009, have colluded and sold the petitioners' property to respondent no.5 although the petitioners were willing to deposit the entire loan amount. This Court by order dated 24.09.2009 in W.P No.9853/2009 had passed the following order:-"The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of M.P. Lokdhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988 whereby the petitioner's property has been put up for auction on 7.8.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount towards the bank as well as the expenditure if any incurred by the auction purchaser and submits that in view of the aforesaid the property be returned to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!