Madhya Pradesh Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vijayendra JaIn Vs. Saatal Woollen (P) Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC245; (2003)2CompLJ23(MP); [2003]46SCL300(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. This company petition is filed by the creditor of the respondent company on the ground covered under Section 433(c) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act. It is the case of petitioner that their money dues are outstanding on the respondent company and despite the demand made and statutory notice served as required under Section 434 of the Act on the respondent company, the same notice having been paid, the need to file this company petition under Section 433(c) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of inability to pay debt has arisen.2. It is not in dispute that during pendency of this company petition, the respondent company was declared as sick industrial company by BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [SICA], and eventually the BIFR by order dated 29.3,1995 passed under Section 20(2), ibid., referred the case of respondent company to this court for passing the winding up of the company. It was held by BIFR th...
S.C. Saxena and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT355
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The petitioners by this writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, have called in question the legal propriety of theorder dated 25-6-1999 passed in O.A. No. 75/91 by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur. It is pertinent to state here the aforesaidoriginal application was decided along with two other original applications, butthe present writ petition being confined to the aforesaid original applicationwe shall only refer to the facts in the aforesaid original application and dealwith the merit of the said case. 2. The petitioners three in number, were applicants before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 757/91. It is relevant to state here that in the aforesaid O.A. there were 32 applicants. Their case before the Tribunal was that they were working on the post of Head Clerks and Superintendents-II. A scheme was floated by the respondents on 11-7-1979 stipulating that a person who was discharging onerous duties would...
Naresh Chandra Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT104
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this second appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected second appeal being S.A. No. 573 of 2002 because both these appeals arise out of the same judgment/decree so too the suit. 2. This second appeal is filed by the defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment/decree dated 23-9-2002, passed by learned IVth Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in C.A. No. 3-A of 2001, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 6-A of 2000, decided by Ist Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsaur, on 17-11-2000. Both the Courts below, i.e., Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have decreed plaintiff's suit giving rise to filing of this second appeal by defendant No. 1 whereas, the other second appeal (573 of 2002) is filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 6 contending that the appeal involves substantial question of law as is contemplated under Section 100 of CPC. So the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether appeals inv...
Delamine Bv Vs. Beta Napthol Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC675; [2003]47SCL559(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This company petition is filed by the creditor of the respondent-Company on the ground covered under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, it is the case of petitioner that their money dues are outstanding on the respondent-company and despite the demand made and statutory notice served as required under Section 434 of the Act on the respondent company, the same not having been paid, the need to file this company petition under Section 433(e) of the Act i.e. on the ground of inability to pay debt has arisen.2. It is not in dispute that during pendency of this company petition, the respondent company was declared as sick industrial company by BIFR under the provisions of the SICA and eventually the BIFR by order dated 23.5.2000 passed under Section 20(2) ibid referred the case of respondent-company to this Court for passing the winding up of company. It was held by BIFR that the respondent company is not a viable company, that it has lost its substratum, that its en...
Shantilal Chhotelal and Company Vs. Beta Napthol Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas30(MP); (2003)3CompLJ326(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This company petition is filed by the creditor of the respondent company on the ground covered under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, it is the case of petitioner that their money dues are outstanding on the respondent company and despite the demand made and statutory notice served as required under Section 434 of the Act on the respondent company, the same not having been paid, the need to file this company petition under Section 433(e) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of inability to pay debt has arisen.2. It is not in dispute that during pendency of this company petition, the respondent company was declared as a sick industrial company by BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), and eventually, the BIFR by order dated 23.5.2000 passed under Section 20(2), ibid., referred the case of respondent company to this Court for passing the winding up of company. It was held by BIFR that the respondent company i...
Shastri R.K. Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ899MP
S.L. Jain, J. 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated November 22, 2002, (Annexure P. 1), passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), in Original Application No. 585/2002, whereby a prayer to set aside and quash the orders Annexure P.2 to P.8 was rejected by the Tribunal.2. Brief resume of the facts is as follows: The petitioner is working as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the respondent Sangthan, since 1983. In July 2001, when the petitioner was working as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Bhopal, he was placed under suspension as per order dated July 13, 2001, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Bhopal region and a charge-sheet dated October 16, 2001, was issued.3. It is alleged by the petitioner that he required certain documents for the purpose of submission of reply to the charge-sheet and he prayed for the same vide l...
Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Beta Napthol Limite ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC655
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. This company petition is filed by the creditor of the respondent-Company on the ground covered under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, it is the case of petitioner that their money dues are outstanding on the respondent-company and despite the demand made and statutory notice served as required under Section 434 of the Act on the respondent company, the same not having been paid, the need to file this company petition under Section 433(e) of the Act i.e. on the ground of inability to pay debt has arisen.2. It is not in dispute that during pendency of this company petition, the respondent company was declared as sick industrial company by BIFR under the provisions of the SICA and eventually the BIFR by order dated 23.5.2000 passed under Section 20(2) ibid referred the case of respondent-company to this Court for passing the winding up of company. It was held by BIFR that the respondent company is not a viable company, that it has lost its substratum, that its e...
State of M.P. and anr. Vs. P.B. Menon and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP117; 2004(1)MPLJ285
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This bunch of 12 writ petitions is filed by the State Government assailing the order Annexure P/6 passed by the Board of Revenue dated 3-4-2002.2. Sale deeds were presented by the purchasers for registration, the sale deeds are styled in the form of deed of assignment cum sale deed. Different sale deeds were executed each for a consideration of Rs. 4,16,667/-, plot value was shown at Rs. 3,50,000/-, structure value Rs. 66,667/-, stamp duty paid was Rs. 32,620/-. The sale deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrar (Registration), Jabalpur and transactions were recorded. Sub-Registrar opined that valuation of the land and building in the instrument is not proper and adequate and forwarded the same to the Collector of Stamps for determination of the market value of the property and the proper stamp duty payable thereon as per memo P/2 dated 29-6-1999. In the opinion of the Registering Officer each of the property ought to have been assessed at Rs. 38,77,000/- in acc...
Manohar Manikrao Gharpure and anr. Vs. Anwar Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ132
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Through this appeal the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni, in Claim Case No. 62 of 1989, dated 27.3.1996 has been challenged.2. Briefly stated, the accident took place on 9.5.1989 when truck No. CPQ 6301, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against a Fiat car No. MWZ 176. As a result of this head-on collision, deceased occupant of Fiat car died. The Claims Tribunal holds that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and there was no negligence by the driver of the Fiat car. At the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Against the claim of Rs. 3,000 per month as income, the Claims Tribunal holds that the deceased may be earning Rs. 1,500 per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, yearly dependency has been fixed at Rs. 10,000. Consequently, after applying multiplier of 16, compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,400, carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cen...
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appellate Tr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC576; 2003(2)MPLJ473
Chandresh Bhushan, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent of Nagpur High Court, has been preferred by the appellant on being aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2001, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 384/1999, dismissing its' petition for setting aside the order dated 27.3.1997 of the Regional Transport Authority, granting regular stage carriage permit to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the route between Morena to Shankarpura and the order dated 30.11.1998 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, passed in revision against the said order dated 27.3.1997 of the Regional Transport Authority.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No. 3-Ram Kishore Upadhyaya applied for and was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Chambal Area, Morena a new regular permit for the route Morena to Shankarpura via Mudiakheda, Babu Ka Pura, Kheda, Badagaon, Dinmi, Ratiram Ka Pura, Umaria Ka Pura, Rathod Ka Pura, Baba Ki Tekri, Badfara,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »