Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-28-2000
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR472]; (2000)IILLJ1511MP
Fakhruddev and N.G. Karambelkar, JJ. 1. These four Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against a common order dated November 2, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1364/1997, 1360/1997, 1270/1997 and 1267/1997, out of which these appeals arise, and shall be disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants/petitioners who were workmen filed the aforesaid petitions for a direction that the respondents shall continue them in service and shall regularise them in service on the ground that their termination from service is illegal. It is contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Return was filed in W.P. No. 1358/1997 and it was adopted by the counsel for the respondents in other cases also. The learned writ Court considered the entire material on record in great detail in paras 5 to 11. In para 9 the learned single Judge while dealing with the provisions of Section 25F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-04-2000
Reported in : AIR2002MP53; 2001(4)MPHT315; 2002(4)MPLJ314
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. Petitioners/appellants filed writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing communication dated 10-4-2000 (Annexure P-30) whereby the petitioners have been informed that their mortgaged assets shall be sold for recovery of outstanding dues in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent M.P. Financial Corporation.2. The petitioners were advanced a term loan of Rs. 28.45 lacs in the year 1980. The amount was disbursed in between the period 1981 to 1983. The M.P. Financial Corporation took possession of the mortgaged assets on 7-4-2000 in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Act. The dues against the petitioners as on 1-1-2000, according to the M.P. Financial Corporation, is Rs. 2.40 crores, inclusive of interest. The sale of the mortgaged assets was advertised in daily news papers Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat on 4-6-2000. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-04-2000
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT418; 2001(2)MPLJ361
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dated 21-6-1999, in Case No. 37/86-87/907, whereby the Authority directed that the tenant (non-applicant before the Authority) shall handover the vacant possession of the suit-property to the landlady/applicant, within a period of two months, failing which, it is open for the landlady/applicant to get the recovery of the possession, in accordance with law. It was further directed that the tenant/non- applicant shall pay the rent atthe rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the landlady/applicant till the date of handing over the possession. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Authority also directed the payment of Rs. 9,600/- to be made to the tenant/non-applicant, as compensation, by the landlady/applicant, at the time of taking over the possession from the tenant.2. The brief facts giving rise to the case arc that the landlady/applicant has a non-residential accommod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-10-2000
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1634MP
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of Misc. Petition No. 987/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another) and Misc. Petition No. 978/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another).2. The respondent No. 2 of each petition preferred appeal to the appellate authority andAssistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar appointed under Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia pleading that the present petitioners/employer by playing unfair trade practise terminated their services and as their termination was contrary to the principles of law, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated with the back wages. The case ofRespondent Kale Khan was registered as Appeal No. 157/1987 while the case of respondent Gul Khai was registered as Appeal No. 37/1988. Each of the employee in his appeal submitted that they were working w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-08-2000
Reported in : 2000(1)MPHT684
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition (though filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in fact this is petition under Article 227 of the Constitution), the petitioners seek quashment of the order Annexure D, passed in Review by respondent No. 3, the Sub Divisional Officer Jaora and all consequential proceedings taken thereafter.2. The petitioners are the joint tenure holders of certain agricultural lands situated at village Rignod, Tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam. Proceedings under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against petitioner No. 1 in 1970 and final order was passed on 16-2-89 (vide Annexure A) by the S.D.O. Jaora in Case No. 193-A/90-B-3/74-75. Certain lands were declared as surplus and vested in the State under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act. However, the S.D.O. on its own motion and after seeking permission of the Collector on 20-3-81 (vide Annexure C) undertook review of the order Annexure A. Final order of review was passed on 23-3-91 vide A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-11-2000
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3048
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed by the mother of the detenu Mohd. Abid, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).2. The facts as laid out in the present petition in brief are, that the detenu Mohd. Abid is a tailor by profession and is not a habitual criminal. He has been involved in false cases. A petty criminal case in the year 1995, was registered against him, by Police Moghat Road, Khandwa, for offences under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu was acquitted in the said trial. The order of detention dated 18-5-1999 (Annexure P/1) was issued by District Magistrate, East Nimar, Khandwa under Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the 'Act'.3. The District Magistrate in compliance of Section 8 of the 'Act' intimated the detenu of the grounds of his detention as per Annex. P/4. In para 2 of annex. P/4 it has been stated that the deten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-14-2000
Reported in : [2001]121STC99(MP)
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-assessee seeks to impugn : (i) the proceedings of reassessment initiated under Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'), for the second time by issuing notice (annexure C) ; (ii) the order of reassessment dated October 17, 1984, passed by respondent No. 2--the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore ; and, (iii) the order dated June 15, 1992 (annexure E), passed in revision by respondent No. 1--the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., Indore.2. The petitioner, a partnership firm, was originally assessed to sales tax for the period November 4, 1975 to October 22, 1976 by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, vide order dated September 30, 1977 (annexure A). The assessing authority reassessed the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Act vide order dated August 27, 1982 (annexure B), according to which, tax assessed on a turn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-21-2000
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1528
Bhawani Singh, C.J1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (IV), Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 62/88. The appellant No. 1-Mohammed Shafique Pahalwan has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. l.000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants No. 2 and 3, namely, Hafiz Pahalwan and Irphan, have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. l.000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month each. The appellant. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-26-2000
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT288
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. Whether Insurance Company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.1. Mahmood Ul Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1400/- per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from Bus Stand on 18-2-1996, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station -Hanumanganj and case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code filed in the Court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood Ul Hassan was conducted on 19-2-1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. was Insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. Four Lacs, since th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-26-2000
Reported in : 2001ACJ648; 2000(3)MPLJ561
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Whether insurance company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400 per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from bus stand on 18.2.86, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station, Hanumanganj and case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000, since they were de...
Tag this Judgment!