Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ397
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal filed Under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the award dated 3.11.1988 rendered by the IVth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in claim case No. 71/86 awarding compensation Rs. 78,000/- to the appellants in a fatal accident action.2. The respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company Ltd. has also filed cross-objection challenging the impugned award.3. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children of late Laxmmarayan Yadav who died in a motor accident that took place on 24.6.1986 at Indore involving a Matador bearing Registration No. MBI 9073 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., for 'third party risk'.4. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 36 years and earning salary Rs. 750/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 500/- per month i.e., Rs. 6,00...
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 : AIR1962MP225
Naik, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956, 20 of 1957, 102 of 1957 235 of 1957 and 268 of 1957.2. All these cases arise out of assessment proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and raise some common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. In all of them, assessment orders have been made and appeals from the said orders are pending before the appellate authorities under the Act. The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand made thereunder, under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the assessments in all of them violated Articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution. In letters patent Appeal No. 55 of 1958 Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956 and 20 of 1957, it was also contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) was Void and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP157; 2001(1)MPHT464
ORDERS.S. Jha, J.1. In the petition the petitioners have challenged enhancement of fees for keeping the vehicle within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Mungaoli, District Guna. The tax is levied upon the buses carrying on the passengers, trucks carrying on the goods and tractors and trollies.2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fee cannot be enhanced unless the bye-laws framed under Section 357 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are amended. Learned counsel submitted that Section 358 of the Act provides for framing of bye-laws. The bye-laws have been framed and have been published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 12th January, 1980. The bye-laws are known as 'Mungaoli Municipality Temporary Occupation of Streets and Public Places, Bye-laws, 1980' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bye-laws'). Rule 4 of the bye-laws provides that no person shall use or occupy any public street or place or immovable property vested in or under the control ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Indore
1. This writ petition has been preferred against the award dated 08.01.2007 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) by the MP Industrial Tribunal, Indore in Reference Case No.2/2006. 2. Relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are that the first party is a registered union in the name of Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh (Congress) (respondent No.1) whereas second respondent-Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. There was a memo of settlement (Annexure P/4) dated 03.02.1988 in Form 'M' as per Section 43 of the MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MPIR Act) and Rule 44 of the MP Industrial Relations Rules, 1961. Settlement was arrived at after conciliation proceedings between the Managing Director, MP State Road Transport Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh Transport Workers Federation. Relevant terms of the sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP176; 2001(2)MPHT14
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the orders dated 9-8-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Seoni, vide Annexure P-5 and P-6.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of screening of films through a VCR and projecting the films on a large screen by means of an electronic apparatus. The Video Parlour owned by the petitioner No. 1 is named as Neeraj Video Centre. The petitioner No. 1 has been granted licence bearing licence No. 1/94 to run the Video Parlour. The said licence is granted on annual basis and he had the licence till the year 1999. The petitioner No. 2 was given a licence bearing No. 7/VCR/Lic/99 for screening of films through VCR/VCP which was valid till the year 1999. These licenses are granted under the provisions of the M.P. Cine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1742
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. This Writ Petition was initially heard by a Division Bench. The two learned Judges of this Court constituting the Division Bench passed separate conflicting judgments/orders which were signed and delivered. In the aforesaid situation treating the case to be one where there was a difference of opinion, a reference was made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to a third Judge. The third Judge/nominated Judge vide the order dated 16-2-1998 returned the reference unanswered to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further appropriate orders indicating that reference was incompetent for the reasons given in that order and the matter required to be placed before a larger Bench which could effectively deal with the situation as it will not be under any inhibition nor incompetent to hear every aspect of the case before it. It was thereafter that Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted the present Full Bench and the Writ Petition has thus come up before it for being heard and disposed of.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT225
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Expressing a sanguine doubt with regard to the correctness and soundness of the decision rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar v. Jama Masjid Committee, Sagar, 1998 (1) MPJR 111, the learned Single Judge while hearing this Second Appeal thought it apposite to put the controversy to rest, the matter should be heard by a Larger Bench to adjudge the acceptability of the ratio laid down in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra) and on that foundation he made a recommendation for reference as a consequence of which the . matter has been placed before us.2. One of the substantial question of law which has been formulated by the learned Single Judge while admitting the second appeal is:--'Whether the notification dated 7-9-89 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would apply to the suit filed on 8-3-1989 ?' 3. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid substantial question of law, it is gathered that the suit was instituted prior to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT198
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The Harda Municipal Council (third respondent) auctioned the lease hold rights (for a period of 30 years) in regard to certain shops owned by it. According to the terms of auction, the Lessees will have to pay the agreed premium and a monthly rent (the rent had to be increased by 25% every three years). The petitioners were the successful bidders in regard to various shops. The third respondent sent communications dated 25-1-2000 to each of the petitioners requiring them to get their lease deeds registered. The petitioners had to pay stamp duty under Article 35 (a) (v) and 35 (c) of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act at conveyance rate in regard to five times the average annual rent and in regard to the premium/advance. The petitioners gave a representation dated 10-9-2001 to the State Government seeking exemption from payment of stamp duty under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in Madhya Pradesh, for short 'the Act'). Such exemption was not g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3301
T.S. Doabia, J.1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 219 of 1994, also as in both these petitions same legal issue has been raised. The facts have, however, been taken from Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1995.2. Proceedings have been initiated under Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdhistha Bhrashta Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The initiation of these proceedings was challenged in the Court below. It was contended that there is non-compliance of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. It was specifically urged that cognizance of this case could not be taken because there was no direction given by the State Government of the officer authorised by a notification under the section. It be seen that Section 39 was amended in 1984. It would, therefore, be apt to notice the amended as well as unamended provisions. These read as under :Unamended Amended1. Cognizance of Offences. Section 39. Cognizance39. All offence under this of Offences. Al...
Tag this Judgment!