Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP151
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated 2nd December 1948. It was filed in the Madhya Bharat High Court under Section 25 of the Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act 1949 as it stood before it was amended by Madhaya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 6th November 1947 by Gulabchand Tongya against the heirs and legal representatives of Govindram Seksaria on the Original Side of the High Court of the former Indore State for specific performance of an agreement whereby, it is said, Govindram Seksaria agreed to sell to the appellant his share in a firm the business of which was to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd., Indore.The suit was tried by Sanghi J., who on 11th June 1948 made a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of 5/32 of the capital deed of assigning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP167; 2006(2)MPHT45; 2007(1)MPLJ181
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In this petition filed in public interest, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in permitting non-forest activities in the forest area. Though this petition related to a limited area to be developed by the Special Axea Development Authority (SADA) respondent No. 6 and has challenged the development plan of the said Authority in which forest area is being utilised for non-forest activities for construction of Counter Magnet City and permission of mining in the forest area, during the course of arguments, this being a public interest litigation, the Court has enquired about the non-forest activities in the district of Gwalior and issuance of mining lease to various persons on the forest land. In view of the contradictory reply by the Department of Forest and Revenue, a committee was constituted which was headed by Justice R.B. Dixit, a retired Judge of this Court, Committee submitted its report. State was not satisfied with the said report and furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ376
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. Petitioner has by this writ petition challenged Notification No. 7-B-1-38-91-CTD-V dated 27th March, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 1 State (Annexure-B) as being ultra vires Articles 14, 301, 302 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Company having its distillery and bottling unit at village Rojrachakra, District Raisen. The petitioner is manufacturing beer at its Indian Made Foreign Liquor Unit and has entered into an agreement with Jagajit Industries taking franchise of their products for being manufactured at the bottling unit of the petitioner. It is alleged that some more groups are having manufacturing facilities in the State of M.P., namely, U. B. Group, Shaw Wallace, B. D. A Limited; Jagajit Industries and Tilak Nagar Industries. It is alleged that the State of M.P. in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses (g) and (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Madhy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP79; 2005(1)MPLJ481
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioner a registered company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at Malanpur Industrial Area, District Bhind, M. P., has called in question tenability of order the dated 7-11-2001 (Annexure-Q) passed by the Collector of Stamps, Bhind directing for payment of stamp duty and penalty on a document, executed in connection with transfer of certain property conveyed by the deed (Annexure-F) dated 13th June, 1996 so also the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure-T) dated 3-1-2002 and the consequential demand notices Annexure-R and Annexure-S dated 12-11-2001 and 22-12-2001 demanding stamp duty of Rs. 23,72,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,09,05,000/-.2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally their unit at Malanpur (M.P.) known as Tyre Cord ., who were owners of the undertaking which included the leasehold land, building, immovable pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas700(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 377 of 1985 (Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. P. Ltd. v. Dr. Gokuldas], which arises out of the same order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6-B of 1962. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6B of 1962, thereby rejecting the appellants' objection and refusing to set aside the sale in execution case involving mortgaged properties. 3. Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants, M/s. Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indore, mortgaged certain properties, including the land sold, in execution with the State Bank of Indore, which filed a suit No. 6B of 1962 and obtained a decree for Rs. 20,19,435.83 against appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were directors and guarantors of the first appellant, the company. The first execution was filed by the decree-holder-bank o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)5VST260(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. An important question has been raised by the petitioner in respect of applicability of provisions of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'M.P.C.T. Act') between 1.4.1995 and 24.12.2001 for enforcing the provisions of M.P. Hotel Tatha Vas Grihon Me Vilas Vastuon Par Kar Adhiniyam 1988 (for short 'Luxury Tax Act').2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:It is therefore most humbly & respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased:To quash the Luxury tax asstt. order dated 21.6,2002 Annexure P-5.To hold that the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was not applicable in Luxury Tax Act, 1988 during the impugned period i.e. 1-11-1995 to 26-3-1999.To hold that Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer committed mistake in not issuing demand notice in form VI as prescribed under the Luxury Tax Act.To quash the notice for recovery from third parties issued in form 45 of the Commercial Tax Act Annexure P-7.To hold that the petitioner was not entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP141; 1974MPLJ257
Tare, C.J.1. This opinion shall govern the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal as also the Second Appeal No 91 of 1966 -- (Durgaprasad v. Chunnilal).2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been referred to this Court for decision of the entire appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 31-3-1971, as also for decision of the question whether a Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a tenure holder within the meaning of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. That question is also involved in Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966 (Madh Pra). Therefore, by this opinion, we propose to decide that question and later on, we propose to decide the Letters Patent Appeal on merits. On expression of the opinion on the question referred Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966, will have to so back to the Single Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the opinion of this Full Bench. Along with these two cases. Second Appeal No. 447 of 1966 (Madh Pra) -- (Smt. Ra...
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
Reported in : AIR1980MP4; 1979MPLJ817
Faizanuddin, J.1. This is a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) having been made by a learned Member of the M. P. Board of Revenue, Gwalior, as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in consequence of a Revenue Revision No. 132-11/77 against an order dated 28-1-1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector of Stamps, Burhanpur, in Revenue Case No. 5-B-103/73-74. The short question as contained in paragraph 6 of the order of reference of the learned Member, Board of Revenue and referred to this Bench for its opinion is as follows; --'Whether in respect of instruments, which were registered prior to the coming into force of the amendments in 1975, the Sub-Registrar is empowered to make a reference to the Collector of Stamps in regard to under-valuation, once such instrument has been registered.'2. The factual aspects of this case, which emerge out, giving rise to this reference, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP51
1. In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1983, the non-applicant/appellant has called in question the defensibility of the judgment dated 21st day of September 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 85-A of 2001 (new No. 179-A of 2002).2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated are that the applicant/respondent wife filed an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for annulment of her marriage performed with the non-applicant/appellant/husband and to pass a decree of nullity. It was pleaded in the application that she was a student of Post Graduation course and the appellant husband is a Vaidya and also engaged in astrology. The mother of the respondent wife was a patient of high blood pressure and her father a diabetic for many a year. Her parents used to have the treatment from the appellant husband who was practicing both Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic medici...
Tag this Judgment!