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
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.161/2012 Chandra Shekhar Sharma -Versus- The State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice Keshav Kumar Trivedi. Shri Rakesh Shroti, Advocate and Shri S.P.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondents. ORDER ( 20.09.2012) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though as per the rules which were in vogue at the relevant time there was no bar that the petitioner will not get the full salary as prescribed under the rules, on account of his appointment as a member in the M.P Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter 'Commission' for short) yet such a claim made by the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 4th August 2012, therefore, he is required to file this writ petition.2. In short the claim of the petitioner is that under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and the rules made thereunder, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ704MP
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. By this application under Article. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a direction to the industrial court commanding it to entertain and dispose of an appeal which the petitioner had filed under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, against an order of the Registrar cancelling the registration of a trade union of which the petitioner claims to be the president.2. This application must be granted. The industrial court rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that under Section 11 of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, no appeal lay to the industrial court against an order of the Registrar cancelling the certificate of a trade union. In reaching this conclusion the president of the industrial court altogether overlooked the fact that the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, was amended by Madhya Pradesh Act 28 of 1960, in its application to Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 of the Indian Trade Unions (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1960 (Madhya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. 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 of this manpower harmony between the manpower input and the management which uses this manpower for a better output, is a first and foremost aspect in an industrial fora. Whereas disharmony between these two forces adversely affects the output and the future of industry. Vice versa is true when there is harmony. It is therefore, the workman whose efficiency is paramount to attain optimum. To maintain this efficiency the workman must have the congenial industrial environment. To attain the same, the workman must have the bargaining force without which he is subjected to exploitation. Since individual workman has no bargaining power having any impact. It is the collective bargaining power which is of some importance in the industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
..1.. W.A.No.940/12 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Writ Appeal No.940 of 2012 V.P.Kulshrestha S/o late Shri Lahorilal age:56. years Occupation: Service Address: Office of the Jt. Director, Town and Country Planning Department, E-5, Paryavaran Parisar, Shahpura, Bhopal (M.P.) .Appellant/petitioner Versus State of M.P. Through its Principal Secretary Department of Housing and Environment, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Respondent PRESENT: Hon'ble Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti Hon'ble Justice Smt.Vimla Jain Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Counsel for appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Counsel for respondent. ORDER (Passed on 19.10.2012) This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 9.8.2012 passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No.12761/2012(s), by which prayer of the petitioner for ad interim writ was declined.2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted :- (i) That the aforesaid prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on caveat. 2. Since the affected party is already represented, the matter is finally heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Order dated 27-9-2014 passed by M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Vide impugned order, a Revision preferred under section 77(14) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Act) filed by respondent No. 2-Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. against the order dated 15-9-2014 passed by Additional Registrar (Judicial), Co-operative Societies, Bhopal has been allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 5. That, before Additional Registrar (Judicial), petitioner while invoking powers under 80-A of the 1960 Act sought quashment of order dated 23-8-2014 passed by Registering Officer appointed by the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP177; 1971MPLJ338
Bhargava, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of M. P. Nos. 12/67, 17/67, 18/67, 619/66 and 620/66 also.2. The petitioners in these petitions are incorporated companies owning textile mills at Indore wherein the petitioners carry on the business of manufacture of cotton-textile goods. By these petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the first respondent Shri T. S. Paraskar who has been appointed the Assessing Officer under the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, and the Indore Excess Profits Duty Order, 1944. By the Orders Impugned in these petitions, the petitioners were held liable to pay Interest on the arrears of industrial tax and excess profits duty and have been called upon to pay the said amount.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders and for restraining the State Government-from recovering interest fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P. No.12760/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.12760 / 2012 PETITIONER : Rakesh Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Banwarilal Agrawal, R/o. Barapatthar, District Seoni, Narsingh Ward, Jabalpur (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:1. Brijesh Goutam, S/o. Garisingh Goutam, Proprietor, Shrushti Engineers, R/o. Barapatthar, Seoni, Tehsil and District Seoni (M.P.) 2. Nirmal Kumar Chourasia, S/o. Gokul Prasad Chourasia, Gurunanak Ward, Seoni, Tehsil and District Seoni. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner/plaintiff by Shri Manot Sanghi, Advocate. Respondent No.2/defendant by Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (01.08.2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 10.11.2011 as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. They are heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 15.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a contract for construction of high level submersible bridge across river Angrer near Kheda Village for Kheda approach road on Pithampur Kheda Road, District Dhar was awarded to the petitioner @ 1.01% above SOR for road and bridge works issued by EinC, PWD, M.P. and enforce from 15.04.2009 amended upto the date of issue of NIT has been accepted by EinC, PWD, Bhopal on behalf of the Governor of M. P. 3. After signing of agreement, the work order was issued on 12.11.2012. As per work order, the petitioner was to complete the work within 12 months excluding rainy season but the same was not completed and inspite of various notices to carry out the progress in the work, there was no progress in the work in proportion to the time stipulated in the work order and the extent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. This order shall lead to final disposal of writ petition Nos. 459/2009 – M/s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 460/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 461/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 463/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 464/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 466/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 468/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 470/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 472/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 473/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 474/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 4083/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others; 4086/2009M/ s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others and 14784/2008 M/s. Maihar Cement v. Union of India and others as the issue raised in these writ petitions being similar. 2. Issue which crops up for consi...
Tag this Judgment!