Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT316
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-4-2000 passed by ADJ, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 14/99 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18-4-2000 passed by VI Civil Judge Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 366-A/96 was set aside, the present appeal has been filed which has been admitted for final hearing on 22-1-2001 on the following substantial question of law:Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a patent illegality in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground of not asking for any declaration in the suit?2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession on 11-3-87 against the respondents alleging that suit property bearing House No. 20/4 situated at Ushaganj, Indore was of the ownership of Mulla Ibrahim Bhai, whose L.Rs. are respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It was alleged that suit property has been purchased by the appellant from Mulla Ibrahim vide registered sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT134
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This revision has been preferred under Section 19 of the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for short), challenging award dated 1.1.1997 passed by M.P.Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference case No. 54/1991. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner Dharamdas Nechlani was awarded a percentage rate contract for construction of drainage syphon at R.D.12,800 at Bargi left bank main canal group No. 3. The amount of work put to the contract was Rs. 2.92 lakhs and the stipulated period for completion of work was 10 months excluding four months of rainy season. The petitioner quoted 104% above C.S.R. for steel work and 40% above C.S.R. for other items of the schedule in the agreement. An agreement No. 11/80-81 was executed between the parties and work order was issued to the petitioner on 29.1.1981. The due date of completion of work was 2.4.1982. The syphon was initially proposed to be constructed at R.D.12,800, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT168
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. This petition has been preferred against the order of externment dated 2-8-2006 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned District Magistrate, Anooppur, as modified by the learned Commissioner Rewa Division in appeal vide order dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-1).2. Short facts relevant for the purposes of the petition are that the petitioner is a grain merchant. He was served with the show-cause notice dated 29-6-2006 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 8(1) read with Section 5 (a) and 3 (a) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam'). In the notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner was involved in criminal activities and was leading a team of criminals engaged in gambling. Such criminal activities were causing financial and mental harassment to the poor population of the area. However, no one was coming forward to make a complaint or for giving evidence on account of terror of the petitioner. Particulars of crim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP269; 2007(3)MPHT388; 2007(3)MPLJ595
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Dipak Misra, J.1. Perceiving two conflicting views, one expressed in Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jheera) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey (Jheera) (W.A. No. 310/06), Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory, 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 335 and State of M.P. v. M.S. Wakankar (2007) 1 MPLJ 99 and the other in Mis. Ram and Co. v. State of M.P. and Anr. W.A. No. 342/06 : 2007(3) M.P.H.T. 325 (DB) pertaining to the maintainability of writ appeal under the provision of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') the Division Bench referred the matter to the Larger Bench to put the controversy to rest and further to have the certitude in the field on certain parameters. Be it placed on record that the cavil relates to the bar provided under the proviso to Sub-section (1) to Section 2 of the Act as regards the entertain ability and acceptability of an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this factual back...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT325; 2007(3)MPLJ154
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of above mentioned writ appeals.2. These appeals are filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 2-2-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 543/1999 and connected petitions. Initially these appeals were registered as LPA No. 39/2000, LPA No. 38/2000, LPA No. 36/2000 and LPA No. 35/2000 but were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28-8-2006 on the ground that LPA is not maintainable in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra : AIR2005SC862 . However, the said appeals were again restored and registered as writ appeal after coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to 'the Adhiniyam, 2005').3. Brief facts of the case are that the Excise Department had auctioned 19 shops of Group No. 1 including 2 shops of country liquor. The appellant M/s. Rama and Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT494; 2007(4)MPLJ566
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us pursuant to an order dated 21-11-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4602 of 2000.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the Collector, Bhopal issued an order dated 12-7-1999 in exercise of powers under Clause 6(2) of the M.P. Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition and Price Control) Order, 1977 directing that ail the petrol and diesel pump owners must supply cash memos to consumers in respect of petrol and diesel failing which appropriate legal action shall be taken.3. The petitioners challenged the order dated 12-7-1999 of the Collector, Bhopal in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and contended before the learned Single Judge that under Condition No. 8 of the licence of the petrol and diesel pump owners issued under the M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Control Order, 1980'). it was not necessary to issue a receipt or invoic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP148; 2007(4)MPLJ281
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by appellants who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff Jagannath Prasad Gupta, against the judgment and decree dated 20-7-1995 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 1-A/90.2. The pedigree of plaintiff as pleaded in Para 1 of the plaint is as under:Baijnath Prasad Gupta died on 24-2-1965___________________________________|______________________________| | | |Ladli Bahu Jagannath Prasad Shambhu Nath Virendranath(wife died son (plaintiff) died died in the year defendantin the year during the pendency 1974 No. 11976 of the suit.Appellants are hisL.Rs.3. The suit has been filed for declaration that the registered sale-deed dated 20-11-1986 which is the half portion of yellow, red, green and without colour shown in the plaint map and which has been sold by defendant No. 1 to defendants 2 and 3 is illegal and ineffective with a further relief that defendants be restrained f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)IIILLJ948MP; 2007(3)MPHT174; 2007(3)MPLJ355
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') by appellant assailing the order dated 30-11-1999 passed by Employees' Insurance Court in Case No. 4/95 ESI Act.2. The appellant is registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and carries on the business of a restaurant in the name and style of M/s Manohar Dairy and Restaurant. An application has been filed by appellant under Section 75 of the Act before the Insurance Court challenging the legality and validity of three notices dated 3-2-1995,10-2-1995 and 13-3-1995 issued by the Regional Director of the respondent Employees' State Insurance Corporation whereby the Regional Director has demanded a sum of Rs. 80,988 towards insurance contribution in respect to the employees working in the establishment of appellant.3. The contention of appellant before the Insurance Court as well as before this Court is that the appellant establishment is not covered un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT283
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-2-2005, passed by District Judge, Ratlam, in Civil Appeal No. 9-B/04, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 14-5-2004, passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Ratlam, in Civil Suit No. 39-B/2004, which was modified vide judgment and decree dated 28-7-2004, was dismissed, the present revision petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioners, wherein it was alleged that petitioners purchased fertilizers and seeds from the respondent and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,750/-on 18-5-1999. It was further alleged in the suit that the petitioners further purchased the goods of Rs. 2,520/-, but the amount was not paid, hence the suit was filed.3. The suit was contested by the petitioners on various grounds and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.4. After framing of the issues and recording the evidence learned Trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT76
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. Petitioners by Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate.2. Respondent/State by Shri B.D. Mahore, P.P. with Shri M.L. Gupta, Range Officer.3. This petition is for impugning the order dated 27-6-07 passed by ASJ, Sabalgarh in Criminal Revision No. 100/07 by which the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 14-6-07 passed by JMFC, Sabalgarh in Criminal Case No. 296/07 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 451/457 of Cr.PC for handing over Tractor No. MP 06 JA/3236 to them on Supurdgi with a trolley (hereinafter referred to as 'vehicle') seized by a Forest Officer for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 32, 39(1)(d), 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. Facts as argued and as appeared from perusal of the copies of the relevant documents filed on behalf of the petitions, in brief are, that on 5-3-07 at about 4:00 a.m. (in the morning) during c...
Tag this Judgment!