Back
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Jai Devi Beej Bhandar v. State of M.P.
No. 315 of 1992 (G); Decided on 26.3.1994*.
cht fu;a=.k vkns‘k] 1983 & [kaM 3 & vkns‘k dk izorZu mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;k & ml vof/k esa vkns‘k ds v/khu dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA
The petition involves a short question whether the respondents were entitled to take an action under the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
The petitioner filed this petition with the averments that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the provisions in Civil Misc. Petition No. 402 of 1984 directing that' 'The persons who are dealers within the meaning of the impugned order shall not be prosecuted for any violation of the impugned order until further orders."
The respondents 4 and 5 have in their return said nothing about the order dated 21.6.1984 (Annexure P/3) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They have only stated that they have no knowledge whether the petition was still pending before the High Court but that is not enough by itself when the petitioner came with a specific case that no action could be taken by the respondents under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court having passed the order of stay in the matter suspending the prosecution for any violation of the 'Order', the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner at the relevant time could not be taken due to the suspension order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the order of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court (Annex. P/3), the action taken by the respondents on 23rd January 1992 could not have been taken as the respondents having clearly stated that the Control, order at that time in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not in operation. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The actions taken by respondent No.5 under Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-7 are quashed.
Before parting with the order, it is made clear that if the order has been vacated by the Hon'ble S.C., the respondents shall be at liberty to take action afresh against the petitioner.
Petition is finally disposed of with the above directions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
