Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(1)MPHT97
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of suit by learned single Judge, which was decreed by the Trial Court.2. The case has a chackered history. The present suit was filed by Ratan Singh and Bahadur Singh sons of Tulsiram against Shaligram and State of M.P. for possession of the land and mesne profit, on the allegation that one Sunderlal was the Bhumiswami of Survey No. 303/2 in area 15.50 acres of agricultural land situated at Mouza Sangalkheda Khurd in the district of Hoshangabad. The said Sunderlal died in the year 1964. The suit was filed for restoration of 7 acres of land out of Survey No. 303/2 marked in the map as 'ABCD' which was also the subject matter of an earlier suit bearing No. 4-A/72 filed in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad. As the judgment and decree was passed on 2-7-1964, it was held that the present plaintiff would be entitled for restoration of possession in the event he pays...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001ACJ627; AIR2001MP36; 2001(2)MPHT258; 2000(3)MPLJ246
ORDERA.K. Mishra, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 3037/99 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rajmani).2. Common question has arisen in the present two revisions as to the maintainability of the revisions on account of specific ban created by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 173 provides that no appeal shall lie against an award below the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In such event, when no appeal has been provided the question for decision is whether revision lies under Section 115, CPC.3. Both the aforesaid revisions were taken up for hearing on 21-1-2000. Shri A.S. Jha and Shri H.S. Ruprah assisted the Court as amicus curiae and they also addressed the Court. In both the revisions, the insurer is the petitioner. In C.R. No. 1600/99, New India Assurance Company Limited is the petitioner whereas C.R. No. 3037 of 1999 has been field by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.4. The learned counsel appearing in both the cases have submitted that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000MP235; 2000(3)MPHT355; 2000(2)MPLJ514
Dipak Misra, J. 1. Finding conflict between two Division Bench decisions rendered in the cases of B. Jhonson Bernard v. C. S. Naidu, 1985 MPLJ 675 and Jenendra Kumar v. Roshanlal, 1994 JLJ 19, the learned single Judge made the following reference :'Whether a retired Government servant, who acquires accommodation after his retirement and lets out the same to a tenant, is entitled to invoke Section 23A of the Act?'2. For the sake of convenience and clarity we would refer to the facts in Civil Revision No. 1349/96. The non-applicant/landlord, after his retirement from Government service made an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur on 16-3-1989 under Section 23-A(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant from shop No. 2 situate at Satti Bazar, Raipur, for commencing a business on the ground that no suitable accommodation was available to him for the said purpose. Leave to defend the case was gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP30
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. Suryakant Chandrakar (petitioner in W.P. No. 3715/1998), Mukund Marotirao Khanti (petitioner in W.P. No. 2704/98) as also Smt. Gyani Lunia, (respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions), Manju Kiran Kalia (respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 3715/98 and respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 2704/98), Gopinath Sao (respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 3715/98 and respondent No. 4 in W.P. 2704/98), hereinafter referred to as the 'appointees', besides 9 other per- sons were candidates for appointment as notaries in Mahasamund Tahsil of the District of Raipur. Petitioners being aggrieved by their non-appointments and appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5 aforesaid, have filed the present writ petitions and pray for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents No. 1 & 2 to appoint them as notaries for Mahasamund Tahsil for a period of 5 years with effect from 30th of July 1998 and to quash the appointments of respondents No.3 to 5 as notaries. 2. Briefly state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP71; 2000(2)MPHT499
Arun Mishra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Bengal Trading Syndicate, the appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 33-A of 1994 whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator with respect to claims under Item Nos. 3, 5, 31 (a) and 32 was set aside and the award in respect of other claims of the appellant was made rule of the Court. It was ordered that in respect of Claim No. 4 an amount of Rs. 25,584.91, p., in respect of Claim No. 7 an amount of Rs. 1,29,645.00, in respect ofClaim No. 36 an amount of Rs. 50,932.48 p. in respect of Claim No. 9 an amount of Rs. 13,455/-, in respect of Claim No. 12 an amount of Rs. 29,748.54 and in respect of Claim No. 33(a). 33(b) and 37 an amount of Rs. 34,560/- shall be paid by the Union of India to the appellant. It was further directed that the Union of India shall pay to the appellant interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from 14-6-1990 to 24-8-1994 on all awards except award in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT12; 2000(2)MPLJ530
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Whether or not a Chief Municipal Officer holds a Civil post and is an employee of the State Government is the short question referred to us in the above petitions in view of the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, viz., Jagmohanlal Bajpai v. State of M.P. and Ors. [1977 (1) SLR 746] holding that the Chief Municipal Officer does not hold a Civil post and is not an employee of the State Government and C.P. Kulshrestra (Dr.) v. Government of M.P. (1991 JLJ 198), holding to the contrary.2. We need not deal in detail with the facts leading to reference of the case to the Full Bench for resolving the conflict between the two decisions. Suresh Chandra Sharma, the petitioner in W.P. No. 4829 of 1997 has challenged the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior, by which his application before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that although his services were under the control of the State Government, since h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]245ITR277(MP)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner who is an assessee both under the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question two notices both dated March 18, 1988 (vide annexures P-11 and P-12), issued by the respondent--Income-tax Officer, H-Ward, Circle-I, Indore, under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood before the amendment of 1987), calling upon the petitioner to submit fresh returns of his income for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. At the outset it may be noted that the practice of this court has been not to interfere in such matters at the stage of issuance of notice and leave the aggrieved party first to answer such notice and exhaust the alternative remedies provided under the ordinary law before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227, However, in the instant case, it is noticed that the present petition stands admitted way back in 1988 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)162CTR(MP)386
ORDERN. K. Jain, J.The petitioner who is an assessee both under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act, by the petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question two notices both dated 18-3-1988 (vide Annexures P/11 and P/12) issued by respondent. The Income Tax Officer M-Ward, Circle-I, Indore, under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, (as it stood before the amendment of 1987), calling upon the petitioner to submit fresh return of his income for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. At the outset it may be noted that the practice of this court has been not to interfere in such matters at the stage of issuance of notices and leave the aggrieved party first to answer such notices and exhaust alternative remedies provided under the ordinary law before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226/227. However, in the instance case, it is noticed that the present petition stands admitted way back in 1988 and the petitioner has chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)131; 2001CriLJ2317; 2001(2)MPLJ172
Arun Mishra, J.1. Sadhria entered to a wedlock on April 26th 1982 with the appellant Arvind Kumar, son of appellant No. 2 Prembai alias Gulabrani. Sadhna committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire on 2-7-82 which is after one month and 7 days of her marriage. Both the appellants have been adjudged guilty of abetement of suicide Under Section 306, IPC and making demand of dowry Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Sentence of 7 years' R.I. Under Section 306, IPC and Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 5.000/- each was imposed, in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo six months R.I.2. Case has a checkered history, Initially both the appellants were acquitted by the trial Court on September 27, 1983. An appeal against acquittal was preferred to this Court. The appeal was allowed. Further evidence was ordered to be recorded. Thereafter the trial Court passed a judgment of conviction on August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ691MP; 2001(2)MPHT383
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The petitioner-Society has challenged the common order Annexure P-l passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Gratuity Appeal No. 16/99 to 39/99, by which the order dated 19-2-1999 passed under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act by the Controlling Authority holding that the respondent No. 2 in each case, being a retired teacher, was entitled to gratuity, has been affirmed and the appeals filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the M.P. Societies Registration Act and, inter alia, runs a school in which the respondent No. 2 was a teacher who retired long back on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, prior to the notification dated 3-4-1997 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the educational institu...
Tag this Judgment!