Court : Madhya Pradesh
F.A. No.112/1991 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA First Appeal No.112/1991 (Date of filing of Civil Suit :11. 03.1976) APPELLANTS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh through Defendant No.4 the Collector, Hoshangabad. Defendant No.1 2. Competent Authority, M.P. Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act, Harda. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Mohan Sugar Mills Limited Plaintiff No.1 Registered Office, Harda. Plaintiff No.2 2. The Central Trading Company Private Ltd., Registered Office, Harda. Defendant No.2 3. Seth Vallabh Das Modi (since deceased) not by LRs:- (i) Smt. Pushpa Devi wd/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi, (ii) Krishna Das s/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi (iii) Brijesh Das s/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi All R/o 145, Garhi Pura, Harda (iv) Smt. Chandawali w/o Ramnarayan, R/o Somani Mohalla, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (v) Yamuna Devi w/o Mahesh Kumar Dalni, R/o Agrawal Colony, 499, Jabalpur. (vi) Smt. Mridula Vyas w/o Narendra Kumar Vyas, R/o 860, Mahaveer Nagar, II Kota...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 S.A No.440/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.440/1996 APPELLANT : JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. RESPONDENTS : KANHAIYALAL @ KANDHAI AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (02/04/2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1996 passed by the District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No.19-A/86 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Panna in Civil Suit No.1- A/79-85 thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant claiming a decree for declaration as owner in possession of house No.53/6 situated in Mohalla Raniganj, Panna as well as for a permanent injunction prohibiting the respondents from demolishing the wall of h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P No.11556/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.11556/2006 PETITIONER : M/S DIVYA MARBLE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Counsel with Shri Kunal Thakre, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (04/10/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, whereby the application, filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the entries in the register regarding principal place of business, has been rejected on the ground that the principal place of business of the petitioner is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar concerned and, therefore, the change sought to be made in the entries is beyond ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the relief in the form of direction against the respondent No.1, Hinduja Leyland Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-company) for release of the Excavator Machine on supardgi subject to payment of necessary dues regularly on monthly instalments and further relief incorporated by way of amendment vide order dated 03/02/2014 in the form of direction to newly added respondents' No.3 and 4 to take action and register criminal case against the respondent No.2 and his companions on the basis of complaints made by the petitioner with further direction to respondent No.4 to give possession of the Machine in question to the petitioner forthwith. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that petitioner had approached respondent- company, a finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 for purchase of new Hyundai R215 LC-7 Excavator Mac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(5)MPHT182
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5-7-2005 passed by Ilnd ASJ, Ujjain in S.T. No. 10/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted lor an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under Section 135 of the Electricity Act sentencing him to undergo one year R.I., against which the present appeal has been filed.2. Case of the prosecution was that on 29-11 -2004, Junior Engineer of MPEB along with staff went for inspection, at that time, it was found that appellant was stealing the energy for the purpose of irrigation by running the motor of 3 horse-power. It was alleged that Panchnama was prepared and the electricity equipment from which the electricity was stolen were seized. Upon the complaint of the complainant, case was registered against the appellant at Crime No. 327/2004 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence, appellant was convicted as stated above, against which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner is a Class-B Civil Government Contractor. It is alleged that after lapse of months respondents have not finalised the final bill of the petitioner for want of Royalty Clearance Certificate as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and Department. 3. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in various cases, including the cases of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1987 JLJ 743,M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v. Abrar Construction Company and Ors., 2005 Arb. WLJ 379 (MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v. State of M.P. 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 433 (D.B.) and Tomar Construction Company v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2008 (2) M.P.L.J 40 and recently in Writ Appeal No. 357/2012 (M/s. Arpit Heights (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority) decided on 18.03.2013, the insistence of the respondents for production of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Camp at Jabalpur in Appeal No. 133/2011. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The question for consideration in the petition before this Court is interpretation of Rule 8 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act"). 2. The respondent No.1 had a credit (Hypothetication) and Bank Guarantee account with the petitioner bank. His account was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The proceeding was initiated against respondent No.1 under the Act. A demand notice was issued to the respondent on 3.9.2007 under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice dated 21.11.2007 was issued by the bank for taking possession of the secured assets. In terms of notice the possession of secured assets had been taken on 7.12.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 31.5.2012 whereby application for amendment preferred by the petitioner/employer is rejected by the Labour Court. 2. The services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner Army Public School. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which, in turn, was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. The respondent filed its statement of claim before the Labour Court. In turn, the employer filed his written statement. Thereafter, when matter was at the stage of evidence, the employer filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-8) on 25.12.2011. It was opposed by workman by filing reply. By impugned order, the said application is rejected. 3. The Labour Court rejected the application by holding that the amendment is filed after commencement of trial and, therefore, it cannot be allowed. It is further held that if averments of amendment application are accepted, it wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(4)MPHT219
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11-12-2003 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 42-A/01, whereby divorce petition filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Since the appeal is barred by 281 days, therefore, an application for condonation of delay is filed. The reason for condoning the delay assigned in the application is that after passing of the decree on 11-12-03 appellant approached her Counsel Mr. Suresh Raj Purohit, who was contesting the case on her behalf before the learned Court below. It was alleged that all the necessary documents were given by her to the learned Counsel, who assured that the appeal shall be filed before this Court. It is submitted that thereafter, appellant came to know on 28-10-04 in the proceedings of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, that no appeal has been filed by the learned Counsel. It is furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!