Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1998)148CTR(MP)636
Deepak Verma J.The petitioner, by filing this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the correctness, propriety and validity of the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Khargone, for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, annexures D, E and F, respectively, Annexure-I, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal.2.The brief facts material for deciding the said petition are mentioned hereinbelow:The petition is a partnership firm, duly registered under the Partnership Act, having Shri Keshrimal Jain, Vinod Kumar Jain, Majarimal Jain and Shri Sehaskaran Jain as its partners. Originally, it was a proprietorship concern having its registered office at Khargone, but, later on the same has been transferred to Barwaha, wherefrom the firm is presently carrying on its business.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing sagol, lime, clay and other allied items. The petitioner firm owns a plant situated at Barwaha, where...
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
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
Reported in : [2009]97SCL383(MP)
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions, being WP No. 1998 of 2001 and WP No. 1743 of 2001, as both the writ petitions have arisen out of the orders passed by the Insurance Ombudsman. WP No. 1998 of 2001 has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the 'Insurance Company'), challenging the order dated 4-12-2000, passed by the Ombudsman, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the Insurance Company regarding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman has been rejected, and also raising a further challenge to the award dated 10-4-2001, whereby the Ombudsman has directed the payment of Rs. 17,92,194, along with interest, to M/s. Ruchi Worldwide Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the 'complainant-company'). WP No. 1743 of 2001 has been filed by the complainant-company, requesting for a writ of mandamus and for issuance of directions to the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India, as well as the Insurance Company, to make the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1974MPLJ148; [1974]33STC456(MP)
ORDERP.K. Tare, C.J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 429 of 1971 (Chhotelal Keshavram through its partner Jayantilal, etc. v. 1. Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon, 2. Additional Tahsildar, Sales Tax Recovery-cum-Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Durg). These two writ petitions between the same parties were heard tegether, although they involve slightly different questions. This order shall govern the disposal of both these cases; but we shall have to deal with them separately.2. We first take up Misc. Petition No. 835 of 1972 wherein the order dated 10th July, 1972 (petitioner's annexure A-2) passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, is challenged on the ground that after the petitioner's case had been decided by the Supreme Court in his favour, the Legislature had no legislative competence to validate the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, retrospectively so as to set at naught the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP1
C.P. Sen, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench for opinion as the questions are of general importance:--(i) Where one part of the order is not appealable, while the other part of the same order is appealable as a decree, but the second part is followed as a necessary consequence of the former part of the order, does a revision lie from the former part?(ii) Where it is held that by reason of some of the legal representatives of the deceased having not been brought on record, the suit cannot proceed and stands abated, will a revision lie from such order, although in the latter part of the same order, the suit is dismissed or consigned to the record?2. Certain material facts are required to be stated in order to fully appreciate the questions referred The deceased plaintiff Parmabai filed a suit against the non-applicants-defendants for declaration of her title and for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession of the property,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP276; 2007(3)MPHT376; 2007(3)MPLJ565
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. On a preliminary objection advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ appeal preferred against the order dated 12-1-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17241/2006 is not maintainable being hit by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') a Division Bench hearing the appeal noticed that there are two sets of decisions pertaining to maintainability of an appeal under the Act in respect of interlocutory orders:-- (i) one holding that the appeals are maintainable under certain circumstances, and (ii) the other holding that no writ appeal would lie against any interlocutory order as the bar created by the proviso appended to Section 2 of the Act would come into play. Because of this situation the Division Bench has referred the following question for adjudication by a Larger Bench:Whether the proviso of Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)ARBLR296(MP); 2007(4)MPHT444; 2008(1)MPLJ78; AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)AIRKarR319(FB); 2008AIHC390(MP)(FB
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner entered into a works contract with the respondents for construction of a central spillway of Rajeev Sagar Tank Project in Guna District of Madhya Pradesh on 19-2-1999. Clause 4.3.29.2 of the Conditions of Contract provides that any claim valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more will be considered by the Superintending Engineer (for short 'the S.E.') of the Circle and any party dissatisfied with the final decision of the S.E. may refer the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Adhiniyam'). The petitioner made a claim of Rs. 21.81 crores against the State of Madhya Pradesh in its letter dated 7-1-2002. The S.E. rejected the claim and this was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer by letter dated 6-6-2002. Instead of referring the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam, the petitioner filed the M.C.C. under Section 11(6) of the Arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT514; 2008(1)MPLJ189
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners' father was a money-lender of Shahdol district for more than 30 years. After his death, petitioner continued with the business of money lending. He obtained licence for money lending by getting himself registered under the provisions of Money Lenders Act, 1934. Licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17-3-1998 for a period of two years by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotma, District Shahdol as revealed in Annexure P-2. It was extended from time to time, lastly on 29-3-2006 for a period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 as revealed on the back side of Annexure P-2. Last extension/renewal was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Anuppur. It is pertinent to mention here that on formation of District Anuppur, Tehsil Kotma was made a part of it.2. Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, issued a notice dated 20-11-2006 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner requiring him to provide certain informat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR407]; (2007)IILLJ1012MP
ORDERS.R. Waghmare, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated September 22, 2001 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 2/Controlling Authority directing payment with interest @ 10% as well as the order of Appellate Authority dated December 29, 2002 dismissing the appeal vide Annexure P/2.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 J.L. Kashyap was superannuated from the post of Head Assistant by order dated. November 17, 1994. Respondent No. 1 J.L. Kashyap was working with the petitioners' Institution, M.P State Co-operative Union Limited and carrying on the activity of printing literature as well as running training schools to educate the persorts in all cooperative-movements. The petitioner/ society alleged that on superannuation proper gratuity was paid to him despite which he filed the case before the Controlling Authority claiming that since the gratuity was not paid in time, he was entitled to interest.3. Raising an objection that the Paym...
Tag this Judgment!