Madhya Pradesh Court April 2008 Judgments
Paresh Spinners Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT518
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the assignment of its loan, debts and charges and other collateral securities by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3, as advised by the respondent No. 1 to petitioner vide communication dated 15-4-2006, Annexure P-l. In the present petition, petitioner is claiming following relief from this Court:1. The Hon'ble Court may please to issue an appropriate writ quashing the deed of assignment dated 23-3-06 executed between respondent No. 1-Bank and respondent No. 3 for the assignment of outstanding balance of the petitioner company as per Annexure P-l.2. The Hon'ble Court may please to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent No. 1-Bank to honour its offer of settlement made to the petitioner Company vide letter dated 29-12-05 under Reserve Bank guidelines and also directing the respondent No. 1-Bank to accept the improved offer made by the petitioner Company vide letter dated 18-4-06.3. The Hon'ble Court may please to iss...
Tag this Judgment!Bina and ors. Vs. Mohd. Ahsan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1439
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants calling in question the award dated 16.8.2004 passed by Fourth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 15 of 2004.2. Claimants are the widow, children and mother of the deceased Rajkumar. He died in a motor accident on 15.12.2003 when he was going on his scooter which was dashed by tanker No. MP 09-KB 1803. Deceased succumbed on the spot due to injuries sustained in the accident. Deceased was serving in Air Force. Compensation of Rs. 30,00,240 with interest was claimed. The age of the deceased was claimed to be 40 years. He was drawing monthly salary as per claimants at Rs. 7,876.3. Owner and the driver of the tanker filed their written statement denying their liability contending that the liability is required to be borne by the insurer as the vehicle was insured. The insurance company denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle (tanker) was not holding valid licence and the tank...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlabai and ors. Vs. Kamlesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT190
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 3136/06 as both the appeals are arising out of one award dated 10-7-06 passed by MACT, Neemuch in Claim Case No. 83/05 whereby claim petition filed by appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- was awarded in a death case. In M.A. No. 3487/07 filed by claimant/appellant grievance is that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and the same be enhanced. In M.A. No. 3136/06 the grievance of respondent No. 5 is that respondent No. 5 has wrongly been held liable for payment of compensation which ought to have been exonerated.2. Short facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed claim petition alleging that on 29-5-05 while deceased Gajendra Yadav was returning from his job, at that time, was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. RJ-09/R-7261, which was being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. It was alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Association of the Resident of Mhow and anr. Vs. Delimitation Commissi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT425
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is an Association of the residents of Mhow and has been registered as a Society under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Act. Petitioner No. 2 is a resident of Mhow. Mhow was earlier included in the Indore Parliamentary Constituency. By a notification in the Extra-ordinary Gazette of India, dated 19th January, 2007, the Delimitation Commission of India (for short 'the Commission') published its proposals relating to delimitation of different Parliamentary Constituencies in Madhya Pradesh and specified therein 1st February, 2007 as the date on or after which the proposal will be further considered by the Commission. In the Notification dated 19th January, 2007, the Commission also stated that any objections or suggestions in regard to the proposals should reach the Secretary of the Commission on or before 1st February, 2007. Thereafter, the Commission conducted public hearings on different dates and decided inter alia to include Mhow in Dhar Pa...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Housing Board Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chitnis and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR509]; (2008)IIILLJ959MP; 2008(3)MPHT322
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders of Industrial Court dated 10-11-2005 Annexure P-5 and Labour Court dated 13-10-2004 Annexure P-7. The respondent No. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis on 23-1-1992. She had been performing the work of typist. As per respondent, her services were terminated w.e.f. 28-2-2000 without giving any opportunity of hearing and without any departmental enquiry. The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of M.P.I.R. Act, 1960. She pleaded that she has been engaged as daily wager typist on 23-1-1992 and disengaged w.e.f. 28-2-2000 without any notice. The provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with. The petitioner had been performing manufacturing work and it engaged more than 100 employees. It was specifically stated in the application that the petitioner had been in construction business and it had been constructing houses laying dow...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shyam Sundar Chhaparia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(MP)172; [2008]305ITR181(MP); [2009]177TAXMAN154(MP)
Sanjay Yadav, J.1. The question of law involved in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, preferred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows:Whether during the assessment year 2001-02, the amount received by the respondent on cessation of employment with his employer will be exempted from payment of income-tax under Section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act?2. The sum of Rs. 27,50,000 represents that payment to the assessee, Shyam Sundar Chhaparia, on October 21, 2000, as a 'special compensation' for his agreement not to take up any competitive employment/ assignment in future as per the undertaking signed by him with the Aditya Birla group wherefrom he superannuated on September 30, 2000. The whole question here is, whether the money which the assessee so received after his retirement under a restrictive covenant as a special compensation, in respect of which he was assessed for the year 2001-02, part of his income for the year in question as contended by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Singh Mawai Vs. Anoop Singh Tomar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR519]; (2009)ILLJ128MP
Arun Mishra, J.1. Shri Kunwar Singh Mawai has come up in the writ appeal aggrieved by an order dated January 8, 2008 passed by single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3091/2006 thereby setting aside the Order (P. 1) dated June 14, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court directing Industrial Court/Registrar to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and decide the dispute after hearing the affected parties within a period of three months.2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 namely Anoop Singh Tomar and Vinay Gupta preferred a writ petition before the single Bench. It was averred by them that they were members of the J.K. Tyre Trade Union. The necessary fee had already been collected from their salary. The term of the union of the Employees was expired on March 12, 2006 and thereafter the new elections were to be conducted. Petitioners and other employees of the factory moved an application (Exhibit P-2) on March 23, 2006 for conducting election afresh. Application was moved before the Registrar ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT311
ORDERAbhay Gohil, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 31-12-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6001/07 has filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant/petitioner has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating therein that though he is not having any liquor licence, but he intend to obtain the licence for selling the liquor. Therefore, as per the recent liquor policy of 2006-07, he should also be treated at par with the existing licence holders. It is further contended that the Government has issued liquor policy for the year 2006-07 and has taken decision that the licence of the existing licence holders shall be renewed after payment of 20% extra licence fees. It is further contended that, this decision of the Government is contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of M.P. Fo...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.S. (Minerals) Limited and ors. and N.M. Dubash Stone and Lime Co. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT465
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. As challenge in both these petitions are made to Rule 23-F of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1988') incorporated vide Notification dated 10-4-2003, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts in the record of Writ Petition No. 1679/2004 are referred to.2. Petitioners in both these petitions are carrying on mining activities on the basis of lease granted to them under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Vide Notification dated 10-4-2003 (Annexure P-2) published in the Gazette of India, the Central Government made certain amendments to the Rules of 1988. The aforesaid amendment were made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government under Section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1957'). Being aggrieved by the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1988 vide the Mineral Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramu Thakur Vs. M.P. Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT32
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing vires of Rule 1.20.9 of the Rules called 'M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2008' (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 2008').2. The aforesaid provision has been assailed as illegal and arbitrary by the petitioner on the ground that in case of non-availability of eligible candidates of ST category, in-service candidates, the seats should have gone to the corresponding category candidates of open candidates, it should not have been permitted to be filled by SC category in-service and in case no SC/ST category in-service candidates are available, by OBC in-service candidates and in case no OBC in-service category candidate is available, by general category in-service candidates. It is submitted that aforesaid rule disturbs the ratio of a particular category candidates to the maintained in the colleges for SC/ST and OBC category candidates for whom the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »