Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]246ITR363(MP)
D. P. S. Chauhan, J.1. Threatened with the invasion of their rights, the petitioners, in these two writ petitions, numbered 2593 of 1997 and 1723 of 1998, approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking protection against illegal and arbitrary action against them which tin being heard together are decided conjointly.2. The controversy in these petitions centres round the construction of the house known as 'Dev Shree' and in that regard, the following facts are relevant :Shri Arjun Singh and his wife, Smt. Saroj Singh, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2593 of 1997, and Shri Ajay Singh, their son, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1723 of 1998, after purchasing an agricultural land near Kerwa Dam in village Mandora, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, constructed a house over a portion thereof, named as 'Dev Shree' and which being in the vicinity of Kerwa Dam, was also known as 'Kerwa House' for brevity, is hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT15
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This order shall also decide the bunch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. : 2591/2000 (Raj Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2603/2000 (Firoz Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2639/2000 (Kanker Roadways and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2674/2000 (Damodar Prasad Asati v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2728/2000 (Smt. Manju Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2729/2000 (Hardeo Motor Transport Company v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2730/2000 (Kailash Narayan Rai and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2741/2000 (Mahendra Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2792/2000 (Ajinkya Air Bus Service v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2846/2000 (Gajraj Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2858/2000 (Smt. Sushila v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2869/2000 (Amrik Singh Sidhu v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2870/2000 (Sanjay Kumar Chourasia v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2945/2000 (Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2988/2000 (Jaiprakash Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors.)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(2)MPLJ376
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J.1. Petitioner has by this writ petition challenged Notification No. 7-B-1-38-91-CTD-V dated 27th March, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 1 State (Annexure-B) as being ultra vires Articles 14, 301, 302 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Company having its distillery and bottling unit at village Rojrachakra, District Raisen. The petitioner is manufacturing beer at its Indian Made Foreign Liquor Unit and has entered into an agreement with Jagajit Industries taking franchise of their products for being manufactured at the bottling unit of the petitioner. It is alleged that some more groups are having manufacturing facilities in the State of M.P., namely, U. B. Group, Shaw Wallace, B. D. A Limited; Jagajit Industries and Tilak Nagar Industries. It is alleged that the State of M.P. in exercise of its powers conferred under clauses (g) and (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Madhy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(4)MPLJ403
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made to orders annexures P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4 respectively. Annexure P/1 is a order dated 11.10.05 by which governing body of the petitioner's society has been superseded and a new adhoc committee appointed. Annexure P/2 is the show cause notice dated 16.1.04 issued to the petitioner's society under Section 33 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Annexure P/3 is the order dated 13.10.05 by which members who have been nominated vide order annexure P/1 dated 11.10.05 have been intimated to take over charge and the order annexure P/4 dated 13.10.05 is a letter sent by the Secretary of the nominated body to the Bank to stay operation of the bank accounts.2. Maharaja Jiwaji Rao Education Society is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Adhiniyam of 1973') vide registration certificate annexure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP1; 1974MPLJ699
Raina, J.1. This order will govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 391, 392, 394, 395, 399, 400, 401, 403, 404, 405, 407, 409, 413, 415, 416, 417, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 427 and 430 of 1970.2. The petitioners in these cases are Excise Contractors and hold licences for sale of foreign liquor in Form F. L. 1 at various places in the State. A licence in Form F. L. 1 is for retail sale of foreign liquors not to be drunk on the premises. Before 1964, licences for sale of foreign liquor were granted by the Excise authorities on applications. In 1964-65, the State Government for the first time introduced the system of public auctions for the grant of such licences. This action of the Government was challenged by writ petitions in the High Court; but they were subsequently withdrawn after the Madhya Pradesh Excise (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1964 (Act No. 19 of 1964)was passed. Thereafter, auctions were held in the year 1965-66. In the year 1966-67, no auction was held and the old licences ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1974MP101; 1974MPLJ95
Tare. C.J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an excise contractor Challenging the order, dated 22-12-1970 (Petitioner's Annexure P/1), passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Excise, Gwalior, and Recovery Officer, issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,905/- should not be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue towards the loss suffered by the Government in re-auctioning the licence for a liquor shop.2. The case had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (namely, Raina, J. and Dwivedi, J.), which by order, dated 22-3-1972 referred the entire case for decision by a Full Bench, as Interpretation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India was involved, on which different opinions have been expressed in some cases. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the entire case as no particular question has been referred to us by the Division Bench for our opinion.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP218; 1978MPLJ562
Sharma, J.1. This is a petitionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ setting aside the Award, dated 27-4-1970, given by Land Acquisition Officer, Gwalior in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/56/23/7 (Annexure-B). The petitioner has also challenged Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as being unconstitutional.2. The case of' the petitioner, a body corporate constituted under the Town Improvement Trust Act is that in the city of Gwalior near Jinsinala an open piece of land, commonly known as Garud Saheb ka Bada, 3 bigas and 5 biswas in area, was acquired for Housing Development Scheme. The petitioner has referred to the different notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act. Tahsildar, Gwalior obtained possession over the land and handed it over to the petitioner on 29-11-1957.3. Notification under Section 9 was also issued in the proceedings relating to the acquisition. Some persons, as have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT1
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J. 1. The factual matrix and the question of law involved being similar, this petition and the following petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. (i) W.P. No. 3525/2001 (Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (ii) W.P. No. 3531/2001 (M.P. High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) (iii) W.P. No. 3551/2001 (Kamal Joshi and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (iv) W.P. No. 3554/2001 (Nemi Chand Nema and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (v) W.P. No. 3597/2001 (Madhya Pradesh Class-III Government Association v. Union of India and Ors.) (vi) W.P. No. 4129/2001 (Madhya Pradesh Class-III Government Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.). 2. These petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed to quash the following:-- (i) The Notification No. F-A-4-2-2001-I(1)-2171, dated 25-7-2001 issued by the respondent/State of M.P. whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)MPHT455
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been preferred against the award of the Arbitration Tribunal dated 7-4-1997 whereby the claim preferred by the appellant/contractor has been dismissed in toto and the counter-claim preferred by the Irrigation Department through its Engineer and the State has been allowed by directing the contractor to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,637/- (inclusive of interest) due upto the date of filing of claim i.e. 26-11-1996 and further interest at the contractual rate from 26-11-1996 on the outstanding amount of loan advanced in the sum of Rs. 94,658/-.2. The facts not in dispute are that the applicant/contractor was awarded work for excavation of Chachai Distributary from Ch. 95 to Ch. 225 as part of the Bansagar Multipurpose River Valley Project. The contractor was sanctioned a total loan of Rs. 5 lacs for purchase of machinery which was an e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006MP100
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Petitioner Manoj Rajani has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby sought relief for quashing of supplementary bill of Rs. 68,740/- issued by respondents vide Annexure P. 12. For decision of this petition, necessary facts are as follows.2. That the petitioner had electric connection in his name at a building situated at 569/1, M.G. Road, Rajani Bhawan, Indore. His consumer Number is 800506. On 28-9-1999, Inspector, Flying Squad No. 14, MPEB, City Indore came to the premises of the petitioner and in his presence inspected the electric meter No. 350607 and found slow working of one phase. The inspector took away the said meter and thereafter new meter was installed. Annexure P. 1 is the Inspection report duly signed by the Inspector, Flying Squad as well as the petitioner. On 17-2-2000, petitioner received the supplementary bill of Rs. 68.740A, Annexure P.2 and P.2A is the copy of this bill. On 2-3-2000 employees of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!