Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ287MP
ORDERK.L. Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari the departmental enquiry proceedings drawn up against the petitioner, including the final order therein passed on 4 February 1963 whereby he was dismissed from the service of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.2. The facts of the case are these. The petitioner was employed as an assistant traffic inspector under the Central Provinces Transport Services, which was a State-owned transport undertaking, till 1 June 1962 when the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation constituted under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (64 of 1950), took it over. The petitioner agreed to his services being transferred to the corporation on the following conditions:(i) His existing pay and scale and the conditions of his service will not be affected by the transfer.(ii) The transfer of his service will not be treated as an interruption of his service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP242; [1964]15STC254(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 278, 279 and 281, all of 1963.2. These are four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer Jabalpur, under Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to each of the petitioner. The petitioners also pray that appropriate directions be issued to the opponents to restrain them from making any assessment to sales tax against them in respect of transactions of 'hire-purchase' entered into by them.3. The petitioner's case, broadly stated, is that they carry on the business of financing purchase of motor vehicles on 'hire-purchase' system from their offices located at Allahabad, in Uttar Pradesh; that they have no place of business in the State of Madhya Pradesh and never carried on in the past, nor do they carry on now, within the State of Madhya Pradesh any bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ102
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. Petitioner is a contractor, who has filed this revision under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity the Act') against the award dated 30-11-1992 passed in Reference Case No. 73 of 1990 by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal Bhopal (for short the 'Tribunal').2. Facts giving rise to this revision are these :The petitioner was awarded a 'works contract' by the respondent on 26-10-1993 for construction of masonry structure on the right Bank of the Main Canal of Kolar project in Km. 6 to 11 including the gap filling in masonry structure. The work also included construction of five road bridges. The period of completion of contract was stipulated as 12 months by 26-10-1984 from the date of issue of the work order, i.e. 27-10-1983. The petitioner could not complete the work even in the extended period, therefore, the contract was terminated on 20-3-1986. The respondent served a notice Ex. D/7 dated 1-4-1986 to hand over the cemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP125; 2005(2)MPHT233
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') has called in question the sustainability of the judgment passed on 25-6-2001 by the learned IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Arbitration Case No. 36/2000 whereby the Court allowed the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act filed by the respondents and set aside the award of the learned arbitrator.2. The facts which are discernible from the order of the learned Trial Judge, the memorandum of appeal and other documents brought on record and are necessitous to be stated are that the respondent No. 1 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent No. 2 is a subsidiary concern of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is engaged in manufacture of cement and as widespread business throughout the country. It carries on business through its agents and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(1)MPHT396
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. In this civil revision preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant-petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 8-1-1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 71/98 by the VI Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur whereby he has entertained the prayer made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code by the plaintiffs.2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of the civil revision are that Late Asharam Gamne, the predecessor in the interest of non-applicant Nos. 1-A to 1-E filed the aforesaid civil suit for eviction of the tenant- petitioner on the ground that the premises in question was required bona fide for starting a 'Kirana' business for himself and his son Shankar Rao. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no other reasonable suitable accommodation of his own at Raipur town. The defendant-petitioner filed his written statement to the suit contending, inter alia that on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ192
ORDERTej Shankar, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 28-3-1995 passed by the Tenth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, whereby the amendment application moved by the respondent was allowed.2. Briefly narrated the facts are that a suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction of the defendant from the accommodation in dispute on the ground of Section 12(l)(a), 12(l)(b), 12(l)(e), 12(l)(i) and 12(l)(k) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant contested the claim and filed written statement. The case proceeded. The Court fixed 19-9-1994 as last date for producing the defendant's evidence but the defendant examined himself on 24-9-1994. Again the Court gave one more chance to produce only one witness fixing 9-11-1994. On that date instead of examining the witness an application under Order 18, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code was moved which was allowed and the case was fixed on 9-12-1994. On that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT529
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard on admission.This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 25-1-2007 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Fast Track, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/06, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit for ejectment was affirmed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the present appellant Krishna Rao was owner of the disputed house bearing Survey No. 57/1690. Krishna Rao acquired the suit property from his father Late Shri Anand Rao, who expired on 12-2-1944. On 15-5-2002, he filed a suit for ejectment under Section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 is daughter of Krishna Rao, married to Shri R.G. Khanvalkar and after some time of her marriage, her husband developed bad habits, i.e., started taking liquor and assaulted her and, therefore, the plaintiff who is father of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ677
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner.2. Respondent herein filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note dated 20-4-1991, said to have been executed by the defendant in her favour for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, alleging that no part of the interest and the principal had been paid but the relief claimed was for declaration that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive Rs. 45,000/- as principal and Rs. 23,625/- as interest from the defendant. The relief of declaration was valued at the total amount and fixed court-fee was paid under Section 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act. The court on 25-4-1994, directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee. On 13-7-1994, plaintiff filed an application seeking to pay the ad valorem court-fee less the court-fee already paid and seeking amendment in the plaint seeking to substitute the recovery of principal and the interest amount for the declaration originally prayed for. On the date of the application, a new suit for re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No.9268/2013 (I) 02.09.2013 Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Rao, learned counsel Sr.Adv assisted by Shri V.K.Pandey, learned counsel for respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff/husband has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in C.O.S.No.253-A/2012, whereby his application filed under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC for withdrawal of the impugned suit filed under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (in short The Act.) for judicial separation with liberty to file an appropriate petition under Section 13 of the Act has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner's counsel saying that after filing the impugned suit under Section 10 of the Act, there are so many subsequent events between the parties and on account of that there is no option with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP47
Newaskar, J. 1. Short question which arises for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether 'The Life Insurance Corporation' can be called a 'local authority' For the purpose of Section 14 (1) (f) of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act No. 1 of 1954. 2. The question arose for consideration under the following circumstances. 3. On 26-4-1959 election to the Khachrod Municipality took place under the provision of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder. Four Candidates had been nominated for the purpose of this election including the petitioner and the opponents. On 1-4-59 the nomination papers in respect of each of the aforesaid four candidates were scrutinized. At that time opponent Gulabchand objected to the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified by reason of his being in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation, which according to him, was a local authority within the meaning of the term ...
Tag this Judgment!