Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-16-2003
Reported in : AIR2004MP66; 2004(1)MPHT38; 2004(1)MPLJ114
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission by order dated 18-6-1985 :--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit had abated ?'2. The suit was instituted by State of Madhya Pradesh as plaintiff for declaration that the exparte decree obtained by defendant No. 1 Jai Singh in Civil Suit No. 839 of 1975 on 3-3-1978 against the plaintiff is without jurisdiction and it is not binding on the plaintiff. By this decree a cash allowance of Rs. 100/- per month was granted to defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh. The suit was filed on 7-10-1980. On 30-6-1982, Counsel for the defendant No. 1 submitted an application stating therein that defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh has died four months ago. As mentioned in order, dated 30-10-1984 of the Trial Court, defendant No. 1 - Jai Singh had died on 17-2-1982. An application desc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-13-2003
Reported in : AIR2004MP159
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The main question has arisen in the instant case is to the entitlement of the 'Laboratory Technician' to run the Pathology Laboratory and also about the 'qualifications' to be possessed by Laboratory Technician, Question is also whether visiting pathologist can be allowed to make the visit occasionally in the pathological laboratory and whether such laboratories can be said to be run by pathologist and can be allowed to be run.2. The question involved in the writ petition is of utmost importance for the health of human being, detection of ailments, curative process including medicinal treatment to be imparted depends on the various investigation reports to be furnished on laboratory tests by the pathological laboratories.3. Finding that the laboratory in question 'Maruti Clinical Pathology' has being run by non-qualified person. Prohibitory order Under Section 133 of the Cr. P.C. was passed by SDM restraining the running of laboratory. The S.D.M. Jabalpur took th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-25-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ62; 2003(4)MPHT78
Dipak Misra, J.1. This writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was instituted at the instance of the petitioner who has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years in Special Case No. 6/99% by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Indore. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction he has preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 151/2000 in the High Court at Indore Bench which is pending for disposal. While suffering incarceration he sent the present application challenging the constitutional validity of Section 41 of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act No. 9 of 2001). As the writ petition was instituted on the basis of the application received from the convict from jail we thought it appropriate to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-19-2003
Reported in : 2004(3)MPHT40; 2004(2)MPLJ566
A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 8-1-2003 passed by Presiding Officer of Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. 63-A/2002 (Hindu Marriage Act), decreeing the application filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the wife has preferred this appeal,2. Admitted facts are that the appellant and respondent were married on 21-1-91 at Gwalior and thereafter a female child was born from their wedlock.3. In brief the case of the husband/plaintiff is that soon after the marriage he came to know that the behaviour of his wife is unusual and quarrelsome. She happens to hurled the abuses. She also happens to take bath during odd hours in the night. On being enquired by the plaintiff/husband, the mother of the wife told that after the delivery of a child, she would become normal. But, when the husband did not notice any change, even after female child was born, he examined the appellant at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-04-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT282; 2004(1)MPLJ217
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 19-11-1991 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service in a Summary Court Martial proceeding and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months, and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army Serrvice on 15-6-1984. Hewas Driver (Mechanical Transport). He was granted leave from 9-5-1991 to 19-5-1991 on his application for attending the marriage of his brother. The petitioner remained absent and joined his duties on 24-8-1991. He overstayed his leave for 98 days. There was recording of 'summary of evidence' on 27-9-1991 as per Rule 22 of the Army Rules. On 15-11-1991 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner alongwith summary of evidence. He was informed that he would be tried by the Summary Court Martial on 19-11-1991. On that date he pleaded guilty t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-2003
Reported in : 2005ACJ868; AIR2003MP284; 2003(1)MPHT528; 2003(2)MPLJ504
S.P. Khare, J.1. This is first appeal under Section 96, CPC by defendant No. 2 State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and decree by which compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded to the plaintiff for 'failure of sterilisation'.2. It is no longer in dispute that plaintiff Sundaribai had two sons. At the time of the birth of second son on 27-8-1980 she got her 'sterilisation' done so that there is no further pregnancy. The operation was performed by defendant No. 1 Dr. R. Rathore, Assistant Surgeon, Ashta in the Government Hospital 'by ligation method'. She conceived again in the year 1986 and gave birth to a female child on 8-12-1986.3. The plaintiffs case is that she is a poor and illiterate lady. She was told by the lady doctor that she would not have any further pregnancy. According to the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 acted negligently in performing the tubectomy operation. She claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for 'failed sterilisation' for expenses incurred in the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-05-2003
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR468]; (2004)IILLJ1101MP; 2004(3)MPHT96; 2004(2)MPLJ348
Kumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. The factual matrix, the centripodal polemic, the arguments urged, the justification provided, picture frescoed and the lis spiralled being common in all these appeals they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. To appreciate the vital and constitutive issues that arise in these cases it is apt and appropriate to refer to the facts in L.P.A. No. 89/1998 so that the expose of facts would become clear.2. The appellants (who were the petitioners in the Writ petition No. 3236/1997) (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') invoked the inherent and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India putting forth a case that they have been employed as electricians since 1987 as workmen under National Thermal Power Corporation (in short 'the Corporation') for maintenance of Korba Super Thermal Power Project colonies. The Corporation and its functionaries have not directly employed the petitioners but they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-29-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT383
A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5th July, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 51 -A/87, dismissing his suit, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. In brief, the case of plaintiff is that Mahant Ranchhor Das Jee (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahant Ji'), Janki Kund, Chitrakut, District Satna gave Tilak and Kanthi to the plaintiff and accepted him as his 'Vairagi Chela' in presence of certain saints and hence, the plaintiff became Vairagi Chela of Mahant Ji and to bring him up to the mark the plaintiff was sent to Varanasi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi where he was educated and passed different examinations. After passing matriculation examination the plaintiff took admission in Kashi Vidyapcctha for his education of Shastri (B.A. Standard) which he passed in the year 1975, thereafter he passed M.A. Degree in the year 1978 from Kashi Vidyapeetha, Varanasi. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-29-2003
Reported in : AIR2004MP182
Dipak Mishra, J.1. Expressing the view that the issues involved are of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Mall, v. The Union of India, AIR 1977 Madh Pra 116 (FB) and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan. 1979 MPLJ 644 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 43) (FB), wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments, one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the Municipalities Act) and the rules framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-29-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT1; 2003(3)MPLJ554
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1.Expressing the view that the issues involved arc of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 MP 116 and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644, wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not a condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a Larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments; one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short 'the Municipalities Act') and the rules framed for carrying out ...
Tag this Judgment!