Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT357
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The centrirorial question that emanates for determination in this intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 pertains to the commencement of the period of President of a Nagar Panchayat for the purpose of recall as envisaged under Section 47 (1) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act').2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts which are imperative to be unfurled are that the present appellant was elected as President of Nagar Panchayat in an election held on June 16,2004 and the said election was notified on June 24, 2004. The first meeting of the Municipal Council was held on July 15, 2004. During the continuance of the petitioner as the President of the Nagar Panchayat, a proposal was mooted for his recall and the said application was entertained by the Collector in terms of Section 47 of the Act and was forwarded to the State Government for further appr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP91; 1998(2)MPLJ478
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents.2. Perused the record.3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-1980, passed by the Board of Revenue, the respondent No. 2, whereunder restoring the order passed by the Collector, -- Vidisha dated 11-9-1984, directing for the reversion of the agricultural holdings in dispute in favour of the original tenure-holder, and requiring for recording his name as bhumiswami in the revenue records, and for his being put in possession thereof, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.4. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case He in a narrow compass. Sukka, son of Nanna, was the recorded bhumiswami of the agricultural holdings in dispute. He was a member of the tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe as envisaged under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2010)229CTR(MP)257
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similarity of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in Writ Petn. No. 3222 of 2008 are exposited herein.2. The petitioner, All India Punjab National Bank Officers' Association, is grieved by the deduction of tax at source by the authorities of the bank, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of interest-free loan given to the members of the officers' association. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have issued a circular for taxing the said loans as the rate of interest being charged from the members of the association is less than the lending rate of the SBI. It is contended that Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962 (for short 'the 1962 Rules') has been amended by Notification No. 271 of 2007, dt. 7th Nov., 2007 and is made applicable for the asst. yr. 2008-09 that is, the financial year 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. In the instant writ appeal and the writ petitions, question involved is about the absorption of District Adult Education Officers (hereinafter referred to as "DAEOs") as Assistant Directors vide Order dated 9.4.1999. Further question involved is whether they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director in view of the rules called M.P. Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1982").2. Writ petition was filed by the appellant in writ appeal no.353/2007 in which prayer was made to quash decision dated 9.4.99 to absorb DAEOs and to assign them seniority as Assistant Director, Education, final gradation list had also been assailed. Further prayer was made to direct the respondents to convene the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director and to consider their names and the other eligible candidates ignoring DAEOs absorbed as Assistant Directors. Prayer was also made to tre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP139; 2007(2)MPHT228; 2007(1)MPLJ369
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants-appellants have called in question the defensibility of the judgment and decree passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Betul, in Civil Suit No. 3-A/1996.2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that Civil Suit No. 4-A/1986 was instituted by the defendants appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land situated at Khasra No. 336 admeasuring 1.197 hectare before the First Additional District Judge, Betul. The Court on the basis of compromise application dated 6-10-1990 as contained in Exh. P-6 filed by the parties passed the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1990 as per Exh. P-5. As per compromise, Exh. P-6, land bearing Khasra No. 955 admeasuring 4.56 acres at Village Tikari was to be transferred in favour of Brajesh Kumar, appellant No. 1 in exchange of land bearing Khasra Nos. 335 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)MPHT380
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 17-5-2006 of the learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution in Writ Petition No. 4 of 2005 and raises substantial questions of law relating to interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam').2. The facts briefly are that the appellant purchased on 4-8-1986 an agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 67/8/2 in village Bicholi Hapsi in District Indore and submitted a plan for construction for purposes of residence on the land to the Gram Panchayat of Bicholi Hapsi. By order dated 5-4-1990, the Gram Panchayat approved the appellant's plan and the appellant commenced construction on the land. Village Bicholi Hapsi was not amongst the 37 villages included in the plan area of Indore as notified by notification dated 13-2-1974 of the State Government under Section 13(1) of the Adhiniyam. On 30-3-1999, the Stale Government issued a notification under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT339; 2008(1)MPLJ278
Abhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant/respondent, mainly, with the allegation that the defendant/respondent is a tenant in a non-residential premises belonging to the plaintiff/appellant on a monthly rent @ Rs. 190/- under an oral tenancy. Plaintiff/appellant was earlier engaged in the business of animal feed which has been handed over by him to his two major sons. Sons of the plaintiff/appellant closed the business of animal feed and started their business of ready-made garments in the premises, earlier occupied for the business of animal feed. Besides it, a small godown has been got vacated from a tenant, namely, Mohan Singh, which is being used by the plaintiffs sons for storing their stock of ready-made garments. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is carrying on the business of money-lending. However, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR502(MP); 2007(3)MPLJ127
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the order dated 30.09.1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Indore in Arbitration Case No. 6/2002.2. It is not disputed between the parties that as per indent of the appellant, the respondent No. 1 supplied De-Oiled Cake (DOC) in 30,000 bags. It is also not disputed now that the quantity of goods supplied was sold by the appellant. According to the impugned order, the appellant had placed indent for the supply of DOC produced from Indian Toasted Soyabean Extraction of yellow colour at the price of Rs. 8,750 per metric tonne. As against the quantity intended to be purchased, 95% payment was made to the respondent No. 1 on an understanding that the remaining 5% shall be paid later on. It is not disputed that as per the order, 30,000 bags of DOC were supplied to the appellant, but the appellant disputing the quality of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR494(MP); 2007(2)MPHT342; 2007(1)MPLJ347
ORDER1. Heard.2. This revision has been filed under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 after 123 days of the expiry of the limitation. The State has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [M (C) P. No. 3232/2001] to seek condonation. Reply has been filed by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed great reliance on the amendment made in Section 19 in August, 2005. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that now, since the provision itself confers power to condone the delay, since the Court is considering the application after the amendment, the delay can be condoned under the said provision.3. The Civil Revision was filed in 2001 and admittedly, at that time, there was no provision in Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam providing for condonation of delay. In Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal construction Co. 2003(2) Weekly Note 152, it was held by this Court that Section 19 does not permit or em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP142; 2007(3)MPHT309
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This appeal assails the order dated 26 9 2006 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. 1699/ 2006, whereby the learned single, Judge has quashed the demand raised vide notice Ex. P.9 for development charge and in relation to the determination of compounding fee for illegal construction by the respondents petitioner, directions have been issued as under:In the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand raised by the respondents towards Development Charges, Annexure P-6 and compounding fee Annexure P/19 are quashed with the following directions:1. That the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, regarding the nature of land and the actual area of unauthorized construction within a week.2. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall submit the same before President-in-Council, who shall consider the same in accordance with Section 187A of the Act and also in accordance with the Guidelin...
Tag this Judgment!