Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1974MPLJ691; [1974]34STC504(MP)
ORDERR.K. Tankha, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge an order of assessment of sales tax passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara Circle, on 23rd April, 1960. The period for which the tax was assessed by this order is from 1st October, 1953, to 26th December, 1968. The sales assessed relate to manganese ore raised from the mines of the petitioner which are situated in Balaghat District of Madhya Pradesh and Nagpur District of Maharashtra. But as regards sales of manganese ore raised from the mines in Nagpur District, the period covered is up to 31st October, 1956, i.e., the sales subsequent to this date of manganese ore raised from the mines of Nagpur District have not been included in the assessment. The Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover in a lump sum at Rs. 10,42,153.75. On this turnover the petitioner was assessed to Rs. 31,580 as tax and a sum of Rs. 5,000 was imposed as penalty for failing to apply for registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ93MP
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against an order dated 27 February 1963 whereby the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, dismissed the petitioner from service.2. The material facts of the case are these. In the year 1956, the petitioner was recruited as co-operative and panchayat inspector. Subsequently, he was required to work as a co-operative extension officer. At the material time, he was employed on that post in the Amarwnra Block of Ctihindwara district. By an order dated 17 February 1961, the Collector of Chhindwara suspended the petitioner and directed that a departmental enquiry be held against him. In due course, the chargesheet enumerating six charges (Annexure C) and the statement of allegations (Annexure D) were served on the petitioner and the enquiry was held by Sri S.H. Naidu, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhindwara, who was appointed by the Collector to be the enquiry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]246ITR363(MP)
D. P. S. Chauhan, J.1. Threatened with the invasion of their rights, the petitioners, in these two writ petitions, numbered 2593 of 1997 and 1723 of 1998, approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking protection against illegal and arbitrary action against them which tin being heard together are decided conjointly.2. The controversy in these petitions centres round the construction of the house known as 'Dev Shree' and in that regard, the following facts are relevant :Shri Arjun Singh and his wife, Smt. Saroj Singh, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2593 of 1997, and Shri Ajay Singh, their son, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1723 of 1998, after purchasing an agricultural land near Kerwa Dam in village Mandora, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, constructed a house over a portion thereof, named as 'Dev Shree' and which being in the vicinity of Kerwa Dam, was also known as 'Kerwa House' for brevity, is hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ. 1. This common judgment is rendered in all these matters, as similar points arise for consideration. Except the suo motu proceedings, Writ Petition No.6385/2014, all other petitions are filed by private persons as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying for a direction to withdraw the investigation of the criminal cases commonly known as PMT VYAPAM Examination Scam cases from the Special Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the "STF") constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh; and instead entrust the same to an independent Investigating Agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI"). This very relief was considered by the Division Bench of this Court (one of us, namely, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice was member of that Bench), in Writ Petition 15186/2013 (Awashesh Prasad Shukla vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and other companion matters, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16th Apri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP135
A.H. Khan, J.1. This is a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of mandamus and prohibition against the State of Madhya Bharat and now against the successor Government, the Government of Madhya Pradesh.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner L. P. Hirway entered the service of the Gwalior State as a Judicial Officer in 1940; in 1946 he was dismissed by the Gwalior Government on account of- a frivolous prosecution launched against him, which was eventually withdrawal by the Government, He represented his case to the Gwalior Government, taut in the mean time the State of Gwalior merged in Madhya Bharat. The efforts of the petitioner to press his representation continued and it seems that on 2-11-49, the petitioner was appointed Judge, Labour Court (Madhya Bharat) on a temporary and provisional basis for sis months. He continued in this capacity beyond six months and while he was continuing as Labour Judge, his representation,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 20.10.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.14853/2007 (s) by which the respondent Dr. B.P. Garg has been directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages. 2. Respondent Dr. B. P. Garg was working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. It was alleged against him that while working as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari by presenting two documents in a fraudulent manner, he had managed to get compassionate appointment for his daughter Smt. Rakhi Shukla. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him making the aforesaid allegation and based on the finding of guilt recorded in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Appeal filed before the Disciplinary Authority of the Department was also dismissed and therefore, the matter travelled to the Writ Court. The Writ Court ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1975CriLJ713
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the cases mentioned above. These are references under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, made bv the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge. Jabalpur. respectively recommendinp that the committal orders, dated 30-3-1973 and 21-4-1973, passed bv the Juvenile Court. Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 120 of 1972 and Criminal Case No. 54 of 1973, respectively, committing the respective accused to stand his trial in the Sessions Court for an alleged offence under Section 376, I. P. C, be quashed on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bal Adhiniyam. 1970. a Juvenile Court alone has the jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and consequently, the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the respective accused.2. In the present case, the two accused, Ramesh and Shivram alias Munna, who are boys aged about 14 and 11 vears respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ229MP; 1990MPLJ549
S.K. Seth, J.1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the M.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner Rudra Pratap Singh applied for the post of Civil Judge Class II as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and after appearing in the written examination was selected and recommended for appointment under the Scheduled Tribe quota vide intimation dated 8th May, 1987 sent to him by the Commission. Thereafter, since the petitioner's birth place and permanent residence were stated to be at Murar in Gwalior District, on an enquiry made by the State Government from the District authority concerned it was confirmed by the Additional Collector and District Magistrate, Gwalior vide his letter dated 2nd September, 1987 that the petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and was eligible to receive all facilities granted by the government to the candidates of such tribes. It was also confirmed vide the said letter that the requisite certificate to the above said effect had already been issued by the Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPLJ52; [2006]143STC58(MP)
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. Justice hurried is justice buried. Rule of audi alteram partem (No one should be condemned unheard) or audiatur et altera pars (Hear the other side). Nemo in-auditus condemnari debet is non sit contumax (No man should be condemned without being heard unless he be contumacious). Qui aliquid statuerit, parie inaudita altera, acquum licet, dixerit, haud acquum facerit (He who determines any matter without hearing both sides, though he may have decided right, has not done justice). Justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.2. These are some of the basic maxims/principles which are sine qua non for the enforcement of rule of law as well as rule of justice.3. In this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashment of orders dated June 6, 2003 and June 13, 2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Check-post, Gavadi, Sendhwa (MP) under Section 45-A (12) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.20803/2003 Original Application No.3676/2002 Abdul Matin Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Vinod Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri vivek Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. ORDER (30.9.2013) Initially the present petition was filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur calling in question the order dated 10.04.2002 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of a penalty, after a departmental enquiry, has been dismissed by the departmental appellate authority. The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khandwa imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, after reviewing the earlier order dated 10.7.1997. The Original Application was pending when the M.P. Administrative Tribunal was closed an...
Tag this Judgment!