Court : Madhya Pradesh
K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This pro bono publico under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is filed seeking following reliefs : I. to restore the land of members of tribal family, alleged to be taken, pursuant to lease deed executed by respondent no.6 and 7; II. to take appropriate action against respondent no.5 for abusing its statutory powers; III. to issue such appropriate writs/order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. We have reasons to record such a relief in view of the fact that this Court while passing order on application for amendment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2015, dealt with various objections regarding the said amendment in the writ petition. In fact it is the submission of learned senior Counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 that the petition as carved for the aforesaid reliefs, is not maintainable before this Court in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Balco Empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been referred by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the principle expounded in the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Fatehchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and others (2009 (4) M.P.L.J 50). 2. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench have been formulated by the Division Bench in F.A. No.514/2012 and F.A. No.1134/2012 vide order dated 28.11.2014, as follows:- 1. Whether the ratio of the decision in Fateh Chand Supra (supra) is correct?2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, AIR 1960 SC 980 has application to Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008? 3. M.A. No.1774/2011 has been ordered to be heard analogously with the two appeals vide order dated 01.09.2015, hearing whereof was already in progress on the aforesaid two questions. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition is filed under Section 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) for restoration of company Shree Mohan Sugar Mills Limited . 2. Facts as narrated in the petition are that the company was doing its business as per the object clause but it could not get profitable business. The repeated efforts to fetch good profit could not succeed. Since Company was not profit making company, it could not file the annual return and balance sheet with the Registrar of Companies ( ROC). In 2011, company intended to file some documents on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. On perusal of the site, it appeared that name of company is struck off from the statutory register. It is pleaded that in response to the enquiry made by the petitioner-company, it is learnt that in the year 2007 suo motu action for struck off the name was taken by the ROC. Name of company was finally struck of on 28.01.2008. The ROC informed the petitioner that if petitioner wants to restore the name of compa...
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. 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
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
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
C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 18/10/2014 passed by the 13th Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in M.J.C. No. 10/2011, whereby learned court below had rejected an application under Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to cross-examine respondent No. 1 (a). 2. The facts giving rise to this civil revision may be summarized thus: The applicant and respondent No.2, who are real brother and sister, jointly filed Regular Civil Suit No. 585/2006 against respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. Civil Suit No. 585/2006 was decreed in favour of the applicant and respondent No.2 on 28/07/2006. About 4 years after the judgment and decree, the deceased/respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure through his power of attorney holde...
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This writ petition take exception to the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 as also the final order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 accepting the proposal made for recall of the petitioner as President of the Municipal Council, Harda. Undisputedly the petitioner was elected as President of the said Municipal Council and such election was notified in the year 2011. The Municipal Council, Harda consists of 30 wards and 30 members have been elected as Councillors. Such notification of election was issued on 9 th November, 2011 in the M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary). 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'), a proposal was made by 23 Councillors before the Collector for recall of the petitioner. The fact stated in the said application/proposal was that the manner of working of the petitioner was not in the interest of the Municipal Council and, th...
Tag this Judgment!