Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP301
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree dismissing his suit for compensation, in respect of a consignment belonging to him, of a boiler and attached parts, carried by the Railway from Kanpur to Sehore, parts of which on arrival were found to have got broken, and parts missing. The questions for decision at this stage are,(i) Whether the suit was bad, (a) for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 77, Railways Act, the claim being preferred in writing more than after six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage; (b) for non-joinder, as party, either of the two railway administrations i.e. Northern Railway administration to which the goods were delivered by the consignor and the Central Railway administration over which the goods had to be carried during the latter part of the transport; (c) for limitation under Article 30, and the effect, if any, of the defendant's not having pleaded that the suit had been filed beyond the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT383
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the-Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed by District Magistrate on 2-5-2008 in a Criminal Case No. 3/2007 and the order dated 24-6-2008 by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order of externment dated 2-5-2008 has been affirmed. The order of externment has been passed in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) and Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (referred to as 'Adhiniyam').2. The brief facts culled out from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhchain Ward, Tehsil Deori, District Sagar. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on 2/4-2-2008 under the Adhiniyam as to why an action be not taken against him under the Adhiniyam and be externed from the territorial limits of District Sagar and its surrounding districts. As many as 23 cases were reported to be registered against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP207; 2009(3)MPHT304; 2009[15]STR3; [2009]22STT105; (2009)22VST170(MP); 2009(5)AIRKarR498
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 2005 was challenged primarily and principally on the ground that there is lack of legislative competence on the part of the concerned Legislature to bring in such a legislation and further, assuming the legislation meets the test of legislative competence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid writ petitions were listed along with W. A. No. 1524 of 2007.2. In the course of hearing of the writ appeal, on behalf of the appellant therein, it was contended that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Vindhyachal Distellaries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [2007] 7 VST 197 (MP) has not appropriately considered the decision rendered in Som Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [1997] 1 ILJ 319 and various other aspects which deserve consideration. The Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!