Madhya Pradesh Court August 2003 Judgments
Sakhi Gopal Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
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!Shri Vaishnav Dharmik Panchayat Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT112
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a revision filed under Section 115 of CPC by the plaintiff against the order, dated 16-7-2002, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2002, which in turn arises out of M.J.C. No. 30 of 1998, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Sardarpur, on 12-9-2001.2. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed in default. He, therefore, applied for its restoration. It was dismissed. In appeal, the dismissal was upheld and hence, this revision.3. I am inclined to allow the revision and set aside the order of dismissal, dated 4-124996, passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A of 1995. This I do in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of (1993) 3 SCG 256 and AIR 1998 SC 258. It was a case where the plaintiff was not noticed before the suit was dismissed in default. The dismissal of suit was in the absence of a lawyer. These two authorities of the Supreme Court does hold that notice to plaintiff should have ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT32
ORDERA.M. Sapre, 1. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in the application which seeks to review/ recall the order, dated 2-5-2003, passed by this Court in C.R. No. 938 of 2000.2. In my opinion, when I peruse the impugned order in the context of the challenge laid in the review application, I do not find any ground much less ground contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC so as to recall the order. The only difference that I could notice in the matter is that original matter (Revision) was argued by one lawyer and review was argued by different lawyer.3. This Court has taken into account those facts which were urged and dealt with the learned Trial Judge out of which revision arose and then rendered a finding on those issues which were actually urged by the applicant who was represented by a lawyer. It is a reasoned order and takes into account the issues urged and taken,4. A wrong finding is no ground to see review. Eq...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Gulati and ors. Etc. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. Etc.
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!Ramdayal Vaishya Vs. Anita Kumari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3669; 2003(4)MPHT234
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. Heard Shri M.M. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. Perused record.2. This revision is at the instance of the applicant husband against the order dated 2-12-2002 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision No. 122/2002, whereby the revision filed by the non-applicant has been allowed and the order passed on 8-8-2002 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaidhan, District Sidhi in Misc. Criminal Case No. 38/2000 has been set aside.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be mentioned as under :--The non-applicant Anita Kumari filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, claiming maintenance from the applicant husband Ramdayal amounting to Rs. 2500/- per month. As per the averments made by her in the application, after her marriage her husband Ramdayal, his mother and father used to ill-treat her for their demand for dowry. Abo...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N.P. Pathak and anr. Vs. Kuladhipati, Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT399; 2004(2)MPLJ572
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22-12-1998 (Annexure P-19) by which the appointments of petitioner No. 1 as Professor and of petitioner No. 2 as Lecturer have been cancelled and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate them on these posts.2. The petitioners were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 30-4-1998 and recommended for appointment to the posts mentioned above. This recommendation was to be considered by the Executive Council of respondent No. 2 Awadhesh Pratap Singh University. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh in his capacity as Chancellor of this University through his Secretary gave instructions by the letter dated 18-8-1998 (Annexure B-2) to the Vice-Chancellor that no case for appointment to any post be placed in the meeting of the Executive Council. It was also stated in this letter that contravention of these instructions would be treated as an act of insubordinat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. Vs. Rambabu Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004MP104; 2004(1)MPLJ188
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-State challenging the judgment delivered by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 1165/2002 decided on 29-1-2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Rambabu Agrawal had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract. Suit was decreed and the Court directed the defendant to execute the sale-deed of the property at Rs. 50,000/-, Sale-deed was executed through Court for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The sale-deed was presented for registration valuing the property at Rs. 50,000/- and stamp duty was paid accordingly. Sale-deed was presented before the Registrar. Registrar without registering the document wrote a note that market value of the property is less than the market value fixed, and referred the matter to the District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Gwalior under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Collector of Stamps issued notice for the purpose of assessing the market value of the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT220; 2003(4)MPLJ487
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. Petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order (Annexure P-1) passed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal dated 8-7-2003 in Appeal No. 65/2002-03, by which the learned Commissioner has declined to entertain the application for stay on the ground that the authority has no power under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 to stay the impugned order.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid application ought to have been considered by the authority under Section 18(6) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). The authority was empowered to pass any order conditional or unconditional in this regard and the authority has not considered the provision of Section 18(6) of the Act, while deciding the aforesaid application.3. Section 18 of the Act reads as under :--'18. Appeals.-- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a license or varying the conditions of a licence or by an or...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. H.K. Saxena Vs. Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT217; 2004(1)MPLJ125
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13-1-1997 by which the amount of gratuity and provident fund has been adjusted against the penal rent and for a direction to the respondents to make payment of this amount to the petitioner.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from the post of Professor of Dr. Harisingh Gaur University, Sagar on 31-7-1990. An amount of Rs. 72,000/- was payable to him as gratuity and an amount of Rs. 26,754/- as provident fund. The petitioner was allotted a quarter by the University while in service and he remained in its occupation after retirement upto 16-6-1996. The University computed the penal rent of this quarter at Rs. 1,02,352/- and adjusted the amount of gratuity and provident fund against the same by the impugned order dated 13-1-1997 (Annexure P-5) and asked the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,598/-.3. The petitioner's case is that t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santosh and ors. Vs. Murarilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT159
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a revision filed by the defendants under Section 115 of CPC seeking to challenge an order dated 5-4-99 passed by 10th Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in C.O.S. No. 71/97.2. In a pending suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the petitioners/defendants made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 raising certain objections therein and contending that suit be dismissed at its threshold on the basis of the objections so raised by them in the said application. It is this application which came to be rejected by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that these objections can be raised in the written statement. It is against this order the defendants have come up in revision.3. This question has been examined by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557. Indeed the law remains no longer res integra and stands settled by following observations :--The Trial Court can exercise t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »