Madhya Pradesh Court July 2007 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.
Associated Builders and Contractors Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT426
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J. 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-10-05 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents forfeiting the amount of earnest money deposited by it.2. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT') dated 22-3-05 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner submitted his tender for the work of: (A) Transportation of coal from Jamuna 1 and 2 incline and Jamuna 5 and 6 incline to Jamuna OCM Railway Siding via Colliery approach Road and Kushiyara Phatak with minimum 20 tes. Per day lead 4.58 K.M. (B) Transportation of coal from Jamuna 1 and 2 incline and Jamuna 5 and 6 incline to Govinda CHP/ Railway Siding via Cement Road and Pitch Road with minimum 400 tes. per day Lead 8.3 K.M. along with the tender for the petitioner also submitted Demand Draft No. 090778, dated 14-6-05 in terms of Clause 6 of NIT.3. In response to the aforesaid NIT apart from the petitioner's tender one more tender of one M...
Arvind Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2007MP276; 2007(3)MPHT376; 2007(3)MPLJ565
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. On a preliminary objection advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ appeal preferred against the order dated 12-1-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17241/2006 is not maintainable being hit by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') a Division Bench hearing the appeal noticed that there are two sets of decisions pertaining to maintainability of an appeal under the Act in respect of interlocutory orders:-- (i) one holding that the appeals are maintainable under certain circumstances, and (ii) the other holding that no writ appeal would lie against any interlocutory order as the bar created by the proviso appended to Section 2 of the Act would come into play. Because of this situation the Division Bench has referred the following question for adjudication by a Larger Bench:Whether the proviso of Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pr...
Surendra Prasad Pande Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Three ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT565
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15-11-1995 imposing upon him a punishment of compulsory retirement from service.2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 21-6-1995 in respect of charges which related to the period when the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector/ Thana Incharge, Piplaud, along with another officer, i.e., A.S.I., M.L Arya. Charges against the officers were that on 18-1-1995 one Shri Ramdas and Tulsiram came to the police station to lodge a report in respect of abduction of their sister Sonkali and Jamuna Bai but the petitioner did not record the said report immediately thus, showing gross dereliction of duty. The charge against Shri Arya, ASI was that instead of registering two cases of missing persons he registered only one case. The enquiry was conducted in which the charge was found to be partly proved. Show-cause notice dated 24-1-1995 w...
All India State Bank of Indore Officers' Co-ordination Committe and An ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(MP)338; [2008]297ITR447(MP)
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Sumit Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, as amended by the IT (Amendment) Rules, 2001, is ultra vires, invalid inasmuch as it runs contrary to provisions in Section 17(2) of the IT Act, 1961, and is also discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.3. A Division Bench of this Court delivered an order on 1st Sept., 2003 for placing the matter before the Chief Justice for Constitution of a larger Bench. Thereafter, the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to hear and decide the matter.4. After hearing Mr. Summit Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Lai, learned Counsel for the Department, we find that the questions raised in this writ petition have already been decided by the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [...
All India Punjab National Bank Officers' Association and Anr. Vs. Unio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(MP)339; [2008]296ITR108(MP)
ORDER1. This petition was referred to the Full Bench by order dt. 7th Nov., 2005 of the learned single Judge as it was contended before the learned single Judge that a similar matter in Writ Petn. No. 1285 of 2002 had been referred to the Full Bench.2. In Writ Petn. No. 1285 of 2002, Rule 3 of the IT Rules as amended by the IT (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001, had beenchallenged as ultra vires Section 17(2) of the IT Act and Article 14 of the Constitution. We have disposed of Writ Petn. No. 1285 of 2002 today by a separate order [reported as All India State Bank of Indore Officers' Co-ordination Committee and Anr. v. CBDT (2007) 212 CTR (MP)(FB) 338--Ed.] in terms of the judgment Arun Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [2006]286ITR89(SC) in which the Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of Rule 3 as amended, has held that Rule 3 as amended is in the nature of a machinery provision and applies only to the cases of concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation...
Smt. Shakuntala Pare and ors. Vs. Narmada Ghati Vikas Pradhikaran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT416
ORDERK.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the award dated 19-3-2007 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in M.C.C. No. 33/2002, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for awarding the compensation on account of the death of Anokhilal has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case in short are that in the intervening night of 27th and 28th of October, 1999 at about 12 o'clock Anokhilal was coming from his office by driving Jeep (CPZ 5996) which fell down in a ditch on account of brake failure. Consequently, he received serious injuries. He was carried to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where he succumbed to injuries on 28-10-1999. The report was lodged at Police Station, Govindpura wherein the Merge No. 73/1999 was registered.It was also averred that Anokhilal was the driver at the time of incident in the office of Narmada Valley Tribunal and was getting...
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MPHT410
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the provisions of Article II of the Madhya Pradesh Table on Registration Fees enacted in exercise of powers conferred by Section 78 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.2. Initially, petitioner had challenged the provisions of Section 26 read with Article 35(iv)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act fixing the stamp duty payable on the lease deed.3. At the time of admission, this Court dismissed the prayer of the petitioner regarding challenge to validity of Article 35(iv)(a) of the Stamp Act as the law has been settled by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai v. Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur and Ors. 1986 MPLJ 200 and therefore petitioner has withdrawn the prayer for challenging the provisions of levy of stamp duty on lease under the provisions of Section 26 read with Section 35(iv)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act.4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that now the question about the r...
Raju Kumar and ors. Vs. Mahendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)MPHT144
ORDERK.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 22-12-2004 passed by IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 678/2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been partly allowed directing the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. 77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization for the death of Ku. Jyoti, aged 6 years caused in the motor accident.2. The facts of the case in short are that on 9-12-2003 Ku. Jyoti came out of her school at the same time the respondent No. 1 by driving rashly and negligently Auto No. MP-04-T-6173 dashed against her. She received the serious injuries and died consequently. The respondent No. 2 was the registered owner and it was insured with respondent No. 3. The report was lodged at Police Station Shahjahanabad, Bhopal.It is also averred that Ku. Jyoti was studying i...
Arora Construction Vs. Managing Director and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ281MP; 2007(4)MPHT347; 2007MPLJ622(SC)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This revision has been preferred under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') as against the award dated 15-3-2007 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 8/2005.2. Facts in short are that M/s. Arora Constructions entered into an agreement with the respondents M.P. State Seed and Farm Development Corporation for construction of godown, processing cell and administrative block. The respondents deducted a sum of Rs. 1,44,982/- and made payment of remaining amount. The aforesaid amount was withheld in view of Clause 24 of the agreement. It was submitted that amount was withheld arbitrarily, hence prayer was made to refund the amount along with the interest. M.P. Seed and Farm Development Corporation was with the purview of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as such the contractor was not liable to comply with the provision of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Scheme, consequently it was pr...
Ramesh Singh Gangwar and ors. Vs. Amarjit Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ812
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Mr. M.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant, heard finally on the question of review.2. This application has been filed to seek review of the order passed in M.A. No. 345 of 2005 Ramesh Singh Gangwar v. Amarjit Singh and M.A. No. 346 of 2005 Ramesh Singh Gangwar v. Amarjit Singh, mainly on the ground that while the trial court had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000 as compensation in Claim Case No. 14 of 2004, on computation of the amount, this Court held that the compensation to which he was entitled was Rs. 1,46,000. Learned Counsel submits that in an appeal for enhancement, reduction of amount awarded by the Tribunal was not permissible and, therefore, there being apparent error on the face of record, it deserves to be corrected.3. In para 5 of the order passed by this Court in respect of M.A. No. 346 of 2005, it was observed that Tribunal had assessed the monthly income of the deceased in the sum of Rs. 2,000 and deducting therefrom 25 per cent for the personal exp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »