Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.21057/2012 21.12.2012 Shri A.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) To call for the case record. (ii) To hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from commercial tax on sale of cement in residuary State of Madhya Pradesh manufactured in its cement manufacturing plant at Sonadih. Falling in bifurcated State of Chhattisgarh. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment (Annexure P-3) and the order in revision (Annexure P-4).(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax during the period of eligibility i.e.upto 30-09-2004 under the eligibility certificate granted to it. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition."It is submitted by the petitioner that the controveRs.involved in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Election Petition No.20/2009 Ramlal Kol, son of Ramsharan Kol, aged about 36 years, resident of village Hirwara, Tahsil Mudwara, Distt. Katni ...Petitioner Versus Moti Kashyap @ Motilal, son of Late Mewalal, resident of 1220, Durga Chowk, Phootatal, Ravindra Ward, P.O. Gurundi Bazar, Jabalpur ...Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner. Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing :10. 1.2013 Date of Judgment :10. 4.2013 JUDGMENT In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent to Badwara Legislative Assembly Constituency No.91 has been called in question on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of Representation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :10621. Of 2010 (s) Pramod Mishra V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Others and Writ Petition No :11468. Of 2010 (s) Pradeep Agnihotri V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General with Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 23.8.2012 As common question of law and fact are involved in both these petitions, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the material and the documents available on the record of W.P. No.10621/2010 is being referred to in this order2. Petitioners in both these petitions namely Shri Pramod Mishra and Shri Pradeep Agni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Writ Petition No.9002/2010 (s) and Writ Petition No.860/2012 (s) MOIL Jan Shakti Majdoor Sangh vs. Union of India -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for petitioner: Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Shri S. K. Rao, Sr. Adv.with Shri V. K. Pandey. Adv. Respondents No.1-3: Shri Vikram Singh, Adv. Respondent No. 4: Smt. Indira Nair, Sr. Adv. With Shri Rajas Pohankar Adv. Respondent No.5: Shri S. D. Thakur, Adv. and Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (19.06.2012) Sustained industrial growth is possible in a country with an optimum utilization of input. Labour, skilled on/and unskilled is an important nay an inevitable input without which no industry can function. And for better and maximum or the optimum utilization o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.9343/2010 M/s Samdariya Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prem Francis, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (18.02.2013) The petitioner, a Builder and Developer, has approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising dispute with respect to the claim made by the respondent vide letter dated 15.01.2009 for payment of ground rent and also the rejection of representation made by the petitioner against the said letter vide order dated 17.03.2009. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!