Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC269(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The facts and law being common in both the appeals preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.2. The centripetal issue that arises for consideration in both the appeals wherein the order of the learned single Judge are under assail is whether the appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of deferment of tax provided to them under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (in short 'the 1994 Act') after coming into force of M.P. State Re-organisation Act, 2000 (for brevity 'the Reorganisation Act').3. The facts which are essential to be stated are that the writ petitioners were granted benefit of deferment of tax by notification issued on February 19, 1991 under Section 12 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on fulfilment of certain conditions. The State Government had framed a set of Rules called the M.P. Deferment of Tax Rules, 1986 (her...
indra Kumar Patel Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT517
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the order passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 40/MPIR/2002, dated 19-12-2002 whereby it had set aside the order dated 5-10-2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 129/2002 allowing the application of the petitioner under Section 107 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act').2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner who is an employee has invoked industrial jurisdiction of Labour Court by filing an application under Section 31 (3) of the Act challenging his transfer order dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure P-l) whereby he was transferred from Jabalpur to Haldia. An interim application under Section 107 of the Act was also filed and it was prayed therein th...
Smt. Manjulata Pandey Vs. Saraswati Shiksha Parisad and Two ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT423
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashment of her termination order dated 2-7-1999 (Annexure P-3) as well as order dated 31-7-2000 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing her appeal.2. Sans unnecessary details the facts lie in a narrow compass that the petitioner was serving on the post of Acharya in the institution of respondent No. 2 Saraswati High School which is a non-aided institution. As per the case of the petitioner, she was appointed vide order dated 23-7-1991 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter she did serve for a considerable period and ultimately on 2-7-1999 without assigning any reason or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, against the principles of natural justice her services were terminated. Against her termination, she preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who vide order dated 31-7-2000 (Annexure P-6) dismi...
Ansari Mohammad Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC246
ORDERP.C. Agarwal, J.1. Ansari Mohammed (A1), the son and Munna Khan (A2), is father were awarded compensation of Rs. 22,000/- each with interest at the rate of 12% per annum since 18.8.1999 against all three respondents in claim case numbers 19/98 and 22/98 which were tried and decided together on 7.2.2001. Both these appeals are for enhancement of compensation amount. There has been no cross-appeal or cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure by any of the respondents.2. Both of the appellants have been vegetable vendors. They were travelling with their vegetables on 18.11.1990 in a mini truck owned by Vijay Kumar (R2) and driven by Hariram (R1) and insured with United Insurance Company Limited (R3). Due to negligent driving of the mini truck the same collided with a tree and was overturned. Munna Khan (A2) had suffered following injuries on his person vide Ex. P/6:(1) Lacerated wound 10 cm. x. 3 cm. x skin deep on left medial upper part of leg.(2) Contusi...
Ku. Neena Dwivedi and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT221
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J. 1. All the petitions are being decided by common order as question of law and facts involved in these petitions are identical.2. Petitioners are claiming two advance increments on the basis of acquiring B.Ed. qualification on their own cost during the tenure of service. In this regard the petitioners have placed reliance to various circulars of the State Government and two judgments of this Court. Division Bench of Gwalior Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Jain and Ors., W.P. No. 1244/1999 and Single Bench of Indore Bench in Dwarkesh v. State of M.P. and Anr., W.P. No. 1309/2000, both decided on 30-8-2003, in which this question has been dealt with at length and held that the employees who have passed B.Ed. Examination on their own cost after entering into the service are entitled for two advance increments as per the circular issued by the State Government.3. The relevant dates in the aforesaid cases in nutshell are as under:--W.P. No.N...
Sul India Limited Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC432
ORDER1. The report of O.L. (O.L.R. No. 21) perused.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether a bid received for Rs. 2,66,00,000/- for the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation deserves to be accepted by according sanction by this Court.3. In this connection, I may refer to on the previous two orders passed by this Court on this very issue and in particular order, dated 24.6.2003 and 8.8.2003. These two orders in detail takes into account all facts and circumstances appearing in the case. I, therefore, need not repeat the entire background of the case in this order once the same is detailed in the previous orders.4. It is not in dispute as it is now a matter of record that extensive advertisement/ publicity was given as directed by this Court on the previous dates of hearing in all over India papers not only once but twice. It is also not in dispute that on the earlier occasion when the sale of property was conducted by the commercial tax department in respect ...
Mayank JaIn Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT275; 2003(4)MPLJ497
ORDER1. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 ot' the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought the relief to declare the Rule 9.3 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2003 (for brevity 'the 2003 Rules') as ultra vires on the bedrock that it is defiant of the Constitutional provisions and also on the foundation that there is inherent and irreconciliable inconsistency inter se in the Rules entailing in devastating fallibility.2. The facts which are essential to be Stated are that the Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), the respondent No. 2 herein, conducted Pre-Medical Examination, 2003 on 17-5-2003 and 18-5-2003 in which the petitioner appeared. He was given the Roll No. 849069. As pleaded, he has been awarded 988.76 marks out of 1200 marks and his name features at Serial No. 292 in the merit list of general category candidates. The Board declared the results, merit list as well as the waiting l...
Nirmal Raikwar and ors. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MPHT508
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In these writ petitions the question involved is of allowing the petitioners further opportunity to appear in the part time diploma course examination. Petitioners in W.P. No. 2137/2002 are 7 out of them three petitioners have filed W.P. No. 2848/2003.2. In W.P. No. 2137/2002 petitioner No. 1 Nirmal Raikwar took admission in part time diploma course in the year 1989, petitioner No. 2 Manoj Upadhyay in the year 1991, petitioner No. 3 Manoj Patel in the year 1991, petitioner No. 4 Shankar Patel in the year 1989, petitioner No. 5 Manas Sur in the year 1991, petitioner No. 6 Murari Lal Patel in the year 1991, petitioner No. 7 in the year 1991. They have been given large number of opportunities but they have not been able to clear the part time diploma course so far.3. In W.P. No. 3003/2003 petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar Tiwari was admitted in the year 1989 and petitioner No. 2 Shrikant Mishra in the year 1991.4. In W.P. No. 3237/2003 petitioner No. 1 T.N. Dubey was adm...
Dheerajbai Vs. Ushabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT456
ORDER1. This revision under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 12-9-2002 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, in Case No. 47/97, ordering eviction of the applicant tenant from a non-residential accommodation bearing Municipal No. 158 (old No. 72) situated at Devi Ahilya Marg, Jail Road, Indore.2. Admittedly the accommodation in question originally belonged to one late Ms. Basantibai. Respondent Ushabai is the sister-in-law (brother's wife) of late Ms. Basantibai and it appears that after the death of Basantibai, respondent Ushabai has been collecting rent of the suit accommodation from the applicant tenant. The accommodation is held by applicant for non-residential purpose on rent @ Rs. 175/- per month. Respondent Ushabai, a widow, sought applicant's eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of bonafide need, as specified in Clause (b) of Section 23-A of the M.P. Act and it was averred that her two daughte...
M.P. Housing Board Vs. Mrs. Neera Kapoor and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT422
Dipak Misra, J.:1. In this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity 'the Act') the appellant, M.P. Housing Board, Rewa, through its Executive Engineer, has called in question the acceptability and penetrability of the award passed by the Reference Court on 3-1-1993 in land acquisition case No. 67/91.2. For the purpose of construction of the houses of the M.P. Housing Board (in short 'the Board') a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act was issued on 1-7-1983 for 6.07 hectares of land situated at Dhekaha in Khasra No. 250. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12-8-1993. In pursuance of the notification advance possession was taken on 15-2-1996. On receipt of the due notice the land owners putforth their claim and award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 7-8-1996 and he determined the valuation at the rate of Rs. 36,400/- per acre. A sum of Rs. 6,82,924/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »