Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1984]56STC101(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29th November, 1981, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, in Revision No. DCR/313/81-82.2. The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :The petitioner, a firm consisting of partners Sunil, S/o Kalyanmal Vyas andPrabodh, S/o Vinayak Bhise, submitted an application dated 21st May, 1981, before respondent No. 1 for registration under the provisions of Section 15/16 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In that application, it was not disclosed that the partners of the petitioner-firm had interest in any other business even though in the prescribed application form, such information was required to be given. In the course of enquiry made by the Sales Tax Officer, it came to light that the partners of the petitioner-firm were carrying on business as partners of another firm 'Tekno...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3551
Dipak Misra, J.1. The accused/appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 47/1985 whereby he has found them guilty under Sections 302/34, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months on the first score, rigorous imprisonment for five years each on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of two months on the third count with the stipulation that all the sentences shall be concurrent.2. Briefly stated, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT276; 2001(2)MPLJ524
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Dr. Sunita Sharma, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 199 of 1999; who was an 'in service' candidate holding the post of Assistant Surgeon and fell in 'general category', had appeared in the PRE-PG-1999 examination held by Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and was able to secure 370 marks out of the total mark of 900.2. Dr. (Kum.) Roli Agarwal, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 227 of 1999. Who was an 'institutional candidates' and fell in the 'general category' had also appeared in the same entrance examination and had secured 620 marks out of total marks of 900. Both the aforesaid doctors had sought for their admissions in the Post Graduate M.S. course in the subject of 'Gynaecology' and 'Obstetrics'.3. The Writ Petition No. 1213/99 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 199 of 1999 was filed on 9-8-1999. Whereas the Writ Petition No. 1659 of 1999 giving rise to L.P.A. No. 227 of 1999 was filed on 25-10-1999. Both the writ petitions were consolidated and heard t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988MP4; 1987MPLJ317
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Save by constitutional amendment, powers of a single Judge of a High Court to act suo motu under Article 227, in appending matter, of which he is in seisin, cannot he taken away.2. Is that a constitutionally valid and acceptable proposition.'3. Happily, the obvious importance of the constitutional issue lying in its sui generis character, has motivated Gwalior's legal fraternity to serve a public cause by joining the debate. I heard petitioner's counsel Shri Lahoti who forcefully pressed the above thesis for acceptance, but also heard Senior Counsel Shri J. P. Gupta who volunteered to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Besides, I also heard Shri S. K. Dubey, President, High Court Bar Association, Gwalior and indeed, the State Counsel Shri Sinha at good length, because he forcefully voiced his strong opposition to the thess propounded albeit placing implicit reliance on the Rules framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution.4. Undoubtedly inspiration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1955CriLJ959
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Indore, recommending that the charge framed by the Additional City Magistrate, Indore, against Fateh Chand Under Section 8, Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act 3 of 1948), read with Clause 16(1), Cotton Textile (Control) Order of 1948 be quashed. The offence is alleged to have been committed between 7-12-1948 and 21-1-1949, when the Madhya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1948 was in force. This Act was repealed on 17-8-1950 by Section 17(4) of the Central Act known as the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946) as extending to Part B States by the amending Act No. 52 of 1950.2. The main grounds upon which the reference is based are:1. that on the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1948 by the Central Act referred to above, prosecutions pending under the Madhya Bharat Act and not concluded before 17-8-1950 could not be continued, since the repea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ910
ORDERA.R. Tiwari, J.1. The order dated 12th October, 1993, rendered by the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 17-A/93 registered on application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'Act'), dismissing applicant's application, moved under Section 41 of the Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') is under challenge in this revision petition presented under Section 115 of the Code.2. Facts are jejune. The N.A. No. 1 is the Government of India enterprise. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries the business of manufacturing and sale of Boats. On 12-10-1988, contract was finalised between applicant (seller) and N. A. No. 1 (buyer), on Government's approval for four Petrol Boats to be supplied to Government of Mauritius as gift by Government of India at Rs. 45.10 lacs per boat, thus, total contract value being Rs. 1.804 crores. Some of the material terms, inter alia, were that - a) Shi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001ACJ648; 2000(3)MPLJ561
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Whether insurance company can challenge quantum of compensation under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the question for determination in this case. It arises in circumstances being narrated hereinafter.Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400 per month, apart from allowances and other facilities. While he was going towards crossing from bus stand on 18.2.86, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death. The matter was reported at Police Station, Hanumanganj and case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the court after investigation. Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital. Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer. The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000, since they were de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009ACJ1169
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 2, Gwaiior in Case No. 1 of 1995-W.C.A. (Fatal).2. (a) In M.A. No. 734 of 2000 filed by the insurance company, Badri Prasad Tiwari, aged 20 years, husband of Ranidevi, respondent No. 1, died in a vehicular accident on 28.3.1994. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and son of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. They filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner by the impugned order has awarded an amount of Rs. 81,864 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 on delay in paying the compensation and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1957CriLJ189
Nevaskar, J.1. The only question involved In this appeal is whether the Prevention of Corruption Act No. II of 1947 was the law in force within the limits of Railway lands at Mandsaur during the period from November 1947 to May 1948.2. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:Accused Mohanlal Motilal Paul, who was formerly employed as Sub-Permanent Way Inspector Western Railways Mandsaur was prosecuted along with one J. D. Bhatt for offences under Sections 6(2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of Act No. II of 1947 referred to above and also under Section 420 read with Section 129(b) I.P.C. before the Special Judge Ratlam. After the preliminary inquiry Bhatt was discharged and a charge was framed against Mohanlal under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the aforesaid Act No. II of 1947.The trial then proceeded. Practically at the close of the trial by Notification No. 159(5) J. 480-4/ 52 dated 27-7-1953 published in the Madhya Bharat Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001MP135; 2001(5)MPHT130; 2001(3)MPLJ520
Arun Mishra, J.1. Present Letters Patent Appeals - L.P.A. No. 118/2000, L.P.A. No. 124/2000 and L.P.A. No. 127/2000 have been respectively preferred by M/s. Pressure Sensitive System (India) Limited, Union of India and M/s. Aristrocraft International Private Limited, aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 4223/99 bysingle Bench of this Court on 3-4-2000, whereby the lowest tender of M/s. Pressure Sensitive System (India) Limited which was accepted by Union of India, has been quashed. The Union of India and its Security Paper Mills and lower tenderer which is M/s. Pressure Sensitive System (India) Ltd. are challenging the part of the order quashing the contract for supply of security thread used in currency notes whereas M/s. Aristrocraft International Pvt. Ltd. whose writ petition was allowed, has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 127/2000 aggrieved by part of the order holding M/s. Pressure Sensitive System (India) Ltd. eligible and qualified to make the supply.2. Govern...
Tag this Judgment!