Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-21-1993
Reported in : 1993(44)ECC253; 1993(68)ELT560(MP)
ORDER1. Shri A.M. Mathur with Shri S.K. Garg for the petitioner heard an admission.2. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the case can be disposed of without notice to the other side, only by making certain directions. The impugned orders of the CEGAT are Annexure P 3 Stay Order No. 03 and 04/93-C, dated 28-12-1992 and Order No. 38 & 39/93-C dated 9-2-1993. The Order No. 03-04/93-C rejects the application under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, in which the prayer for exemption from pre-deposit of the amount involved in the appeal was made. As this order was passed in the absence of the appellant-petitioner, another application was made on which Order No. 38 & 39/93-C (Annexure P 4) was passed.3. Shri Mathur submits that after the exemption was granted under Section 35F for the period 28-2-1986 to 6-12-1990, the rest of the claim is barred by limitation as the show cause notice itself has been given beyond the period of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-1993
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ738
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Should the procedural ponderables and technical troublers, such as plea of bar of limitation, be permitted to obstruct the path of justice and defeat rightful claims even though the law, justice and equity all demand the otherwise, is a question to be answered in this order. Indeed they are applications under Order 22, Rule 4, read with Rule 9, of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act coming up for disposal in bit little peculiar facts and circumstances to be noticed hereinafter.2. The plaintiff, a widow lady in her fiftees, knocked the doors of this Court in the year 1970, raising a substantial grievance of having been deprived of her bread and butter by the defendant having succeeded in coaxing her into executing a deed of sale, adjudged by this Court vide its judgment dated 12-8 1991 to be fictitious document. It is notable that one-half share in 37 Bighas and 16 Biswas of agricultural land in district of Vidisha, where the land is valua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-1993
Reported in : 1995(75)ELT743(MP)
ORDERS.K. Jha, C.J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 of which the petitioner No. 2 Bharat Kumar Modi is the Managing Director. It appears from the records of the case that after the petitioners had succeeded in the High Court of M.P. in Misc. Petition No. 1202 of 1989 regarding claim of the classification No. 4/87 by which this Court held that the sample collected before the judgment dated 25th Oct., 1989 could not be used against the petitioner for changing of the classification of the excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act of 1944). It was decided in this petition that the classification submitted by the petitioners would remain intact. The Excise Department, it was further held, was free to proceed against the classification submitted by the petitioners if they felt necessary after taking fresh sample after 25-10-1989. This court further held that it was liable to be set aside and acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-24-1993
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1113MP; 1993(0)MPLJ586
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. An order of termination of service of a clerk is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The petitioner Mahesh Bhargawa was given appointment as a casual clerk by M.P. Vidhik Sahayata Tatha Vidhik Salah Board (M.P. Legal Aid and Legal Advice Board, hereafter referred to as 'Board') for 89 days by order dated December 16, 1988 (Annexure P-1). He was posted to work in the Office of Tehsil Legal Aid and Advice Committee. Sheopurkalan in Morena District. He contined to work as Clerk even after the expiry of 89 days stipulated in the appointment order. Ultimately by order dated December 8, 1989 (Annexure P-2), said to have been served on the petitioner on December 22, 1989, his services were terminated with immediate effect. It is that order which is under challenge in this writ petition.3. The challenge was made on different grounds mentioned in the writ petition, but the only ground canvassed before us was that activities of the Board are 'industry' within the mean...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-02-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ369
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This is plaintiff/appellant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge, West Nimar, Khargone, in C.A. No. 11-A/76, against the Judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Khargone in C. A. No. 17-A/71, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowing the appeal vide paras 38 to 42 of the judgment.2. The original holder of the suit property i.e. agricultural land and house as described in para 1 of the plaint was one Kanaksingh, who was Bhilala belonging to an aboriginal tribe. He died in 1968 leaving Birjubai, his second wife, as well as plaintiff, who is grand daughter of Kanaksingh, being daughter of Sitabai (from another wife Laxmibai). The genealogy is as under :--Kanaksingh (died 1968)|--------------------------------------| | Laxmibai Birjubai (died on 28-8-1968)||Jankibai (Plaintiff)3. The suit was also filed for possession and mesne profits for the years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-16-1993
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-16-1993
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ140
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th February, 1978 rendered by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Jhabua in COD No. 1-D of 77, thereby dismissing the Appellant's suit on the ground of untenability in view of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that parties had faced some dispute as regards monetary liability. They, therefore, referred that dispute to the Panchas in 1974 without intervention of the Court, The panchas passed Award on 27-9-1974. On the basis of that Award, the appellant was held entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the respondents. The parties, on being read over, accepted this award and declared the intention to act according to it. In pursuance of this, the respondent No. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant on 31-10-1974 through panch Bab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-09-1993
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ882
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of S.A. No. 147/85, the parties to both the appeals being common substantially, and the two appeals arising out of two cross suits, in the circumstances to be noticed hereafter. The main judgment is being delivered in this appeal, though instituted later in point of time before this Court, as this appeal arises out of the suit which had commenced earlier in point of time.2.1. On 9-8-1974, Deviram, the respondent No. 1, instituted Civil Original Suit No. 92-A/74 impleading Maltibai, widow of Nicharelal, and sons and daughters of late Nicharelal as defendants seeking declaration of his title over land S. No. 241 area 1 bigha 16 biswas situated at village Alapur, tahsil Joura, Distt. Morena. Nicharelal had expired sometime in the year 1971. The plaintiff Deviram alleged that late Nicharelal had inducted the plaintiff Deviram as sub-tenant on the suit land sometime in samvat year 2017 (near about B.Y. 1960), ever since when he ...
Tag this Judgment!