Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-03-1986
Reported in : AIR1987MP126
T.N. Singh, J.1. A woman was sold, mercifully not in an open market. Because the sale failed, the buyer has sued for refund of the consideration. Was sale not traffic in human beings, prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution? May be, the sale has not attracted, in terms, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for short, the Immoral Traffic Act. But, the moot question is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, invoking Section-65 of the Contract Act, for short, the 'Act'.2. Both the Courts below having decreed plaintiffs suit, defendant has appealed to this Court. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The basis of the suit evidently is a caste-custom. The question, therefore, would also be whether such custom does at all survive after the Constitution came into force. Plaintiffs case was that she was Dangi by caste and had a son named Laxman who could not be married at an early age according to custom prevalent among people of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-22-1986
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ236MP; 1990(0)MPLJ754
G.C. Gupta, J.1. Outlining the ambit and scope and restating conceptual contents of 'employment' as appearing in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the requirement of present appeal filed by the claimant of the deceased workman under Section 30 of the Act, the claim of the appellant having been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bilaspur, by his order dated January 30, 1981 in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 1/79.2. The appellant's husband Amardas was admittedly employed as a Chowkidar with the respondent National Building Construction Corporation at Akaltara Dist., Bilaspur. The said respondent/Corporation had undertaken some construction work as a contractor of the respondent Cement Corporation of India Ltd. It is not disputed that the respondent/Cement Corporation of India was the principal employer and respondent National Building Corporation was the immediate employer in relation to said Amardas. It is...
Tag this Judgment!