Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP280; 1970MPLJ674
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This reference has been made by Bhave, J. in the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit against the respondent for ejectment under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the suit accommodation had become unsafe for human residence, unless extensive repairs were effected; that the suit accommodation was required for the use of some relations of the plaintiff; that the defendant had sublet the suit premises; and that the defendant had caused substantial damage to the premises let out. The suit was resisted by the defendant.The trial Court dismissed it holding that not one of those grounds was made out.2. The plaintiff appealed. At her instance, the first appellate Court struck out the respondent's defence under Section 13(6) of the Act. However, the first appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal because she had not established any one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ86MP; 1968MPLJ604
ORDERG.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is the principal of the Article and Commerce College, Harda. By letter of 29 July 1967, the chairman of the governing body of the college asked the petitioner to explain four charges the details of which need rot be stated. After the petitioner gave the explanation, the Vice-chancellor. Saugar University, on 9 October 1967, sanctioned the suspension of the petitioner pending an enquiry by the governing body. The chairman of the governing-body on 11 October 1967 passed an order suspending the petitioner pending enquiry into the charges. This order recites that the petitioner will draw Rs. 300 per month, during the period of suspension. It may be mentioned that the petitioner as principal is employed on a salary of Rs. 600 per month. The order of 11 October 1967 passed by the chairman was approved by the governing' body on 14 October 1967. The petitioner by this petition calls into question the charges framed against him as also the order suspending h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1996]218ITR74(MP)
A.K. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding in law that the legal effect of filing Form No. 6A in terms of Section 143(2)(a) was not that the original order under Section 143(1) was automatically cancelled ?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring that of the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that that the assessee is an individual being a partner in Alimbeg Salimbhai. The original assessment of the assessee was completed on February 9, 1983, on a total income of Rs. 99,014. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : LC2008(3)45; 2008(37)PTC217(MP)
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This order shall decide IA No. 12694/07, appellant's application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.01 passed by XIth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 383-A/94, whereby the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, filed by the respondent has been decreed ex-parte against it.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the plaintiff/respondent, being member of Institution, namely, 'LIONS INDIA',(association of persons) having its Head Office at 19, Naya Bazar, Jabalpur, filed the aforesaid representative suit declaring the threats of an action for the infringement, passing- off or for consequential damages as contained in the notice of the appellant dated 23.8.1993 are unjustified and groundless, and also issuing injunction against the appellant desisting it from continuing such threats in the forum of legal proceedings or in any other manner either personally or t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP234
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J. 1. The question raised in this revision petition is as to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Ratlam, to try a suit instituted by the opponent for damages for breach of a contract to sell and deliver five wagons of Makka. 2. In his suit, the plaintiff has alleged that on 23-3-1955 the petitioner firm doing business at Ramganj Mandi, Rajasthan, made an offer to him on phone for the sale of five wagons of Makka at a certain rate; that the goods were to be delivered at Asarwa; and that subsequently the defendant failed to deliver the .stipulated Makka to the plaintiff-firm. On these allegations the plaintiff averred that the defendant had committed a breach of the contract and claimed damages to the extent of Es. 6,845-0-6. The plaintiff further pleaded that the contract was concluded in Ratlam and the payment in respect of the goods was also to be made in Ratlam and, therefore, the Ratlam Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP186; 1970MPLJ22
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 323 of 1968.2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one by a person carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cotton at Sanyogitaguni market yard, Indore, and another by a cultivator selling cotton produced by him at the said market yard, challenging the legality of an order under Rule 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued to the Market Committee established for the Indore market area under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing that transactions in the sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only in the principal market yard of the Indore market area, namely, Laxmibai Nagar market yard and nowhere else.3. The matter arises thus. On 23rd September 1953 the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1962]13STC615(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Bhutt, J. (as he then was) whereby he dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the opponents from proceeding to make any assessment under Section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. The matter arises in this way. The appellant is a dealer in manganese ore. In respect of sales of manganese ore during the period from 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, the Sales Tax Officer, Gondia, by his order on 26th July, 1955, found the gross turnover to be Rs. 6,55,044-3-4 and held that the appellant was entitled to a deduction to the extent of this amount of turnover under Section 27-A (1)(b) of the Act. What the Sales Tax Officer really meant was that under the aforesaid provision the sales being in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were not liable to be taxed. Thereafter, the successor of the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT438
R.S. Jha, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by order dated 17-10-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14313/2007 (S), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.2. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent No. 6, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and is an Under Secretary working in the School Education Department filed a complaint before respondent No. 2/Madhya Pradesh. State Scheduled Caste Commission against the present appellant/petitioner alleging that the appellant/petitioner had deliberately delayed the writing of his Annual Confidential Reports relating to the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and also made allegations that the appellant/petitioner was addressing and abusing the respondent No. 6 on the basis of his caste.3. The issue was taken up by the respondent No. 3 in his capacity as Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1991MPLJ237
ORDERFaizanuddin, J.1. This is a petition for taking action against the respondent for non-compliance of order/direction dated 25-2-1988 passed by this Court in Misc. Petitions Nos. 950 and 2074 both of 1984.2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was Executive Engineer. He amongst otters was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 26-7-1983 but as some disciplinary action against him was in contemplation, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 18-1-1984 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner challenged his suspension in this Court in Misc. Petition No. 950 of 1984. The petitioner filed another petition in this Court being Misc. Petition No. 2074/84 for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground of undue delay in disposal thereof. Both the aforesaid petitions were disposed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1559
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 1016/2006 and appellant Ramesh s/o Bapulal in Cr. Appeal No. 1284/2006 have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each respectively, in default of payment of fine on both counts to suffer additional R.I. for one year passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in ST No. 189/2005 vide judgment dated 8-9-2006.2. It would be appropriate here to mention that the learned trial Court has also passed some strictures against the applicant Kiran Lashkarkar, Town Inspector, Investigating Officer in the aforementioned Sessions Trial and also directed holding of Departmental Enquiry against him. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision for quashment of the aforesaid order. Thus, both the appeals and the criminal revision arising out of one a...
Tag this Judgment!