Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Writ Petition No.16730/2012 05/11/2012 Shri Sandesh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General, for the State. The petitioner has sought following relief:- (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, following in bifurcated State of Chhattisgarh. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment (Annexure P/5) and the order in revision (AnnexureP/6).(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax during the period of assessment 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. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for tax exemption as p...
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 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
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
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR 1 Civil Revision No.1343/2003 Sanjay Dubey ..................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant:Shri Vivek Rusia and Shri Shekhar Sharma , Advocates For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 2. Civil Revision No.640/2005 M/s.Pratibha Construction Co........... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri N.Jauhari, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 3. Civil Revision No.481/2006 Arjun Kumar...................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 4. Civil Revision No.178/2008 Mohd.Shakir Ansari............................ Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. NO.1024/2000 RAMASHRAY PRASAD DWIVEDI VS. THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri Udyan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents. ___________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER 11/09/12 Challenging the order dated 5th July, 1999 passed by the Commandant, B.S.F dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of finding recorded in a Summary Security Force Court held in accordance to the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, this writ petition has been filed.2. Petitioner joined the force on 1.4.1987 as a Constable. It seems that in July, 1999 while the petitioner was posted as a Constable in E.Coy 195 Battalion B.S.F. under the control of respondent No.3, a charge sheet was 2 issued to him vide Annexure P/1 wherein it was alleged that on 29th June, 1999 at about 19.45 hours when Shri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.11519/2007 Prasanna Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Meeta Jain and another As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate for the respondents. Order reserved on :25. 7.2012 Order passed on :28. 8.2012 ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.178/2004 whereby the application filed by the applicant seeking amendment in the reply/written statement has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the marriage of applicant and respondent No.1 was performed on 26.2.1996. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, which was decreed ex-parte on 4.9.2001, thereafter on 28.4.2004, after a lapse of 8 years, the respondents moved an application (P-3) under section 12...
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
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!