Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-04-1992
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ693
ORDERD.M. Dharamadhikari, J.1. The petitioner is a prominent leader of the Congress party in India. He was twice Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh. For some period, he was Governor of the State of Punjab. He is presently a cabinet minister in the Central Cabinet.2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the notification published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 29-3-1990, whereby the scope of enquiry pending before Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, Judge of the Madras High Court has been enlarged by adding three more terms of reference for enquiry by him.3. A few important events will have to be kept in mind while deciding the present controversy. Shri Kailash Joshi, who was the leader of the opposition in Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 18-10-1987 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being Misc. Petition No. 3909 of 1987, seeking appropriate directions from the Court in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-17-1992
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ7
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents/M.P. Electricity Board through its Chairman and othera (for short, the 'Board') to continue him in employment till the expiry of the period of one year as per appointment order (Annexure P/1) dated 7-2-1990 and for quashing of the order of termination of re-employment (Annexure P/3) dated 23-8-1990.2. The facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner on his retirement from Police Department from the post of Inspector, was appointed as Vigilance Inspector by the Board for a period of one year on the terms and conditions contained in Annexure P/1; the contract was terminable in terms of condition No. (iv) by either side on one month's notice or on one months salary (including allowances) in lieu thereof. The petitioner was posted in the office of Superintending Engineer (O & M ), Morena, where he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-28-1992
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
Decided on : Jun-23-1992
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ151
S.K. Dubey, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year, in respect of the land situated at Survey Nos. 278 and 279 (new survey No. 216), area 16 'Bigha' 12 'Biswa', in village Amkheda, Tahsil Chachoda, District Guna.2. The appeal was admitted on 12-7-1991 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : --'1. Whether the plaintiff had acquired the rights of a Bhumiswami? 2. Whether the order directing the prosecution of the plaintiff is in accordance with law? 3. Whether the defendants had a right to take over possession of the land in dispute after the abolition of Zamindari? 4. Had the defendants become 'Pakka' tenant as claimed?'3. The facts in brief are thus:According to the plaintiff the land in dispute was given to him on Patta' (ExtP/1) dated 2-8-1943 by Kishorilal, the ex-Zamindar; the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-30-1992
Reported in : AIR1993MP135
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The defendant-tenant, appellant herein, is escaping the decree of ejectment indeed by a hair's breadth.2. The plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for the ejectment of defendant/appellant on the grounds allegedly available under Clauses (a), (c), and (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). The two courts below have found the grounds under Clauses (c) and (n) not to be available to the appellant. In so far as the ground under Clause (a) is concerned, the trial Court held that the provisions of Section 13 were complied with. During the pendency of the landlord's appeal before the lower appellate Court, the tenant defaulted in making deposits pending appeal and hence the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal directing ejectment of the appellant, refusing him the benefit of protection against eviction Under Section 12(3), for his failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13 bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-24-1992
Reported in : AIR1992MP311
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The defendant/appellant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court directing the suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction to be dismissed in reversal of the decree of the trial Court which had decreed the suit. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the recorded Bhoomiswamis of the land. They are the heirs of the late Sewaram and the suit land has devolved upon them from late Sewaram. The plaintiff alleged that he had secured the land on sub-lease from late Sewaram sometime in the year 1946-47 and has been in possession of the land ever since then. With the coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the rights of occupancy tenant and then of Bhoomiswami . tenant have accrued to him which rights are being denied by the defendant/respondents after the death of late Sewaram in the year 1970. 3. The defendants, in their written-state-ments, denied all the material...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-15-1992
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ224
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 864 of 1992, 597 of 1992 and 908 of 1992.All these petitions raise a common question of law to be adjudicated by this Court as to whether the total ban imposed by the M. P. Krishik Pashu Parirakshan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Amending Act') on the slaughter of certain species of cattle is permissible in view of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the petitioner's right to carry on any trade, business or profession of his choice and the law so made is saved by virtue of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. A further ancillary question arises whether such a ban imposed is in the teeth of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.2. The Madhya Pradesh State Legislature first enacted Madhya Pradesh Krishik Upaj Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 and after so many amendments, the Ame...
Tag this Judgment!