Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Prakash Manav and anr. Vs. Ajay and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT137
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 144of 2001 (Prakash Manav s/o Kantilalji Jain and another v. Mangilal s/o Sujanmalji Pamecha and another).2. Misc. Appeal No. 143 of 2001 has been filed by appellants/defendants against the impugned order dated 23-1-2001 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Neemuch, in Regular Civil Suit No. 22-A/2000, whereby allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') which was filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of some amount against the appellants/defendants and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 and also under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code. The reply of the application was also filed. The learned Trial Court by impugned order dated 25-1-2001 allowed the injunction application and directed the appellants/...
Subhan Shah (Deceased by L. Rs.) and ors. Vs. M.P. Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP22; 2003(4)MPLJ513
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 463 of 2000 (Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board, Bhopal v. Shri Subhanshah (deceased) through L. Rs. Ramjan and others) and Civil Revision No. 558 of 2000 (Saleem S/o. Nannusha v. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board, Bhopal and Ors.).2. Against the impugned order dated 8-2-2000 passed by M.P. Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal, in Case No. 864/1995 all the parties to the suit have filed these revisions under Section 83 (9) of the M.P. Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act').3. Civil Revision No. 539 of 2000 has been filed by the L. Rs. of deceased Subhan Sah; deceased Ghisa Sah; Mamu Sah; and deceased Yakub Sah, who were plaintiffs before the Wakf Tribunal in the suit. Civil Revision No. 463 of 2000 has been filed by the M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal. Civil Revision No. 558 of 2000 has been filed by one Saleem who was defendant No. 3 in the suit.4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants of Civil Revision No. 539 of 2000 filed a ...
Damodar Bagdey Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT378; 2004(1)MPLJ117
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved by order (Annexure P-1) has filed this petition. By the aforesaid order while revoking the suspension order, the authority has directed that for the period of suspension, the matter will be decided after the conclusion of the proceedings against the petitioner.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid order ought to have been passed by the authority immediately on revocation of the suspension order and should not have waited the decision of the criminal case.3. The learned Counsel for respondents submits that the authority will pass order regarding the period of suspension immediately after conclusion of the proceedings of the criminal case and in this regard, the authority will follow Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules.4. To appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel of the parties, it is necessary to state some facts of the case.5. The petitioner was working as Godown Clerk. He was placed under suspens...
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Badri Prasad and ors. Etc.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2003MP256; 2003(4)MPLJ503
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In these writ petitions Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB) is assailing the order P.7 passed by the SDO Khandwa, East Nimar, on 25-5-99 and the order P.8 passed by the Commissioner, Indore, Division Indore, on 6-12-2000 in appeal.2. The petitioner MPEB filed an application under Section 5 of the M.P. Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') for eviction of respondent No. 1 as unauthorised occupant. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for addition as necessary party claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession and for that it was stated that civil suit 7-A/98 is pending before the first Civil Judge Class II, Khandwa. The learned SDO has held that it was not having jurisdiction as the unauthorised occupant, respondent No. 1, in each of the petition was not let out the premises by virtue of employment in MPEB. The MPEB has not given the possession to respondent No. 1. As such the provisions of the Adhiniyam are ...
Nepal Singh Dodia Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR665]; 2003(2)MPHT220
ORDER1. What is challenged in this writ by the petitioner is his transfer order, dated 30-1-2003, whereby he is transferred from 'A' School to 'B' in neighbouring Tehsil. The petitioner is a Teacher.2. I find no case to interfere in the transfer order. It is not challenged on the grounds of malafide. Relying upon some policy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no transfer can take place, nor the petitioner can be transferred. It do not agree to this submission. Firstly, it is the right of the employer to transfer his employee - such right being inherently available with the employer. I is indeed an incidence of service and hence, can be exercised always dependent upon the administrative exigencies. What is relied upon by the petitioner (19-3-2002) filed subsequent to filing of the writ on 6-3-2003 do not in any manner indicate or restrict, or prohibit the rights of an employer to effect the transfer. It only provides the manner in which transfer can be effected and nothin...
Rubina Sheikh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MPHT248; 2003(3)MPLJ459
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioners are assailing the order dated 25-9-2001 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal cancelling the permission No. 3077, dated 24-11 -2000 for violation of condition No. 4 and condition No. 8 of the permission as there was dispute as to the title which has arisen in the opinion of the Municipal Corporation.2. It is conceded at Bar that prior to cancelling the permission which was granted on 24-11-2000, none of the petitioners was heard. No show-cause notice was issued why the permission granted on 24-11-2000 be not cancelled. In my opinion in the absence of issue of a notice requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission granted on 24-11-2000 be not cancelled, it was not open to the Municipal Corporation to pass the order (P-10), even if dispute has arisen as to the title, it was incumbent upon the Municipal Corporation to have heard the petitioners in that matter and then take a decision after hearing the petitioners in accordance wit...
Raymond Limited Vs. Steel Tubes of India Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC257
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this company petition shall also govern the disposal of other connected company petitions being Company Petition Nos. 13 of 2000, 21 of 2000, 14 and 30 of 2001 and 15 of 2002, because all these company petitions are filed by the creditors (secured/unsecured) of the respondent-Company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act involving common question.2. This is a company petition filed by the petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act seeking winding-up of the respondent Company--a limited company engaged inter alia in the business of manufacture of tubes. A winding-up is sought essentially on the ground of inability to pay admitted debt amounting to Rs. 3,58,76,265.67 paise. It is the case of petitioner that they supplied in course of their business dealing goods worth Rs. 2,42,87,876.67 paise to respondent on various dates against the orders placed by the respondent company and accordingly invoices were raised on 25.02.1998 to ...
Shrish Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)MPHT97; 2003(2)MPLJ189
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. The question which arises for determination by the Full Bench in the present case is: 'Whether Sections 47-A to 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') are Constitutionally valid ?2. The M.P. Excise Act, 1915 has been amended by the M.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 22 of 2000) which has come into force from 1-12-2000. The penal provision in Section 34 has been made more condign and deterrent if a person is convicted for an offence for manufacture, transport, import, export, collection, possession and sale of intoxicant if the quantity ofthe intoxicant being liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of the offence exceeds fifty bulk litres. In such a case as provided in Sub-section(2) he will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees but may extend to one lac ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Purshottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(MP)349; [2004]270ITR314(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act wherein the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for answer to this Court. They read as under :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to direct the AO to allow deduction under Section 158BB in respect of book profit for asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1994-95, though no return of income has been filed under Section 139(1), 139(4) of the IT Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act were not called for once net profit rate has been applied to compute the income ?' 2. We need not to state the facts in detail except mentioning that the assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of metallic utensils, particularly of gillate as well as trading in stainless steel utensils on a small scale. A search and seizure...
Vinod and Associates and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP65; 2004(1)CTLJ549(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the notice inviting tender (P.1) dated 20th September, 2002. Petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the imposition of the condition of submitting the security of l/3rd amount of the total quantity of the sand proposed to be removed; to be worked out at the rate of 75.00 per cubic meter of sand. The other ground of challenge is giving of only seven days time which is insufficient for such a huge tender.2. Petitioner submits that amount of the security in non-static; the same has to vary as per the quantity which is to be offered by a tenderer though l/3rd to be worked out at the rate of 75.00 per cubic meter is fixed but as quantity of sand has to be offered by a tenderer by the mode adopted huge amount of security has been demanded which is with a view to keep out the small tenderer from the fray. On the earlier occasions, such amount of security was not insisted. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that with a v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »