Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP170; 2005(2)MPLJ353
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The present reference has arisen in a different factual matrix inasmuch as certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') that were incorporated by way of amendment into the aforesaid statute faced assail pertaining to their constitutional validity in the case of Jankidas Bairagi and Anr. v. State of M.P., 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 229, wherein a Division Bench declared the provisions under attack as constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petition in limine, and thereafter when the present writ petition was filed challenging the enactment the same Division Bench issued notice and when the matter was placed for final hearing the Bench hearing the matter recorded a finding that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners had a sanguine grievance with regard to a singular provision and had no cavil in respect of any other provision and accordingly thought it condign to recommend the matter to be referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP159
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The main question has arisen in the instant case is to the entitlement of the 'Laboratory Technician' to run the Pathology Laboratory and also about the 'qualifications' to be possessed by Laboratory Technician, Question is also whether visiting pathologist can be allowed to make the visit occasionally in the pathological laboratory and whether such laboratories can be said to be run by pathologist and can be allowed to be run.2. The question involved in the writ petition is of utmost importance for the health of human being, detection of ailments, curative process including medicinal treatment to be imparted depends on the various investigation reports to be furnished on laboratory tests by the pathological laboratories.3. Finding that the laboratory in question 'Maruti Clinical Pathology' has being run by non-qualified person. Prohibitory order Under Section 133 of the Cr. P.C. was passed by SDM restraining the running of laboratory. The S.D.M. Jabalpur took th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP21
Samvatsar, J.1. This is defendants' first appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Guna, to recover from them a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, The plaintiff's case as laid out in the plaint is that the defendants who are members of a joint Hindu family and carry on business in the name of Mansukhdas Khemchand, had from time to time borrowed various sums of money from the plaintiffs; that an account of these dealings, was made on 28-5-1939 when a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was found due to the plaintiffs; that the defendant No. 1, who was then the manager of the business and Karta of the joint family admitted the correctness of the balance and affixed his signature to the debit entry in plaintiffs' Bahi.It is then alleged in the plaint that on 25-4-1942 the defendant No. 3 borrowed a further sum of Rs. 125/- and signed the debit entry in the plaintiff's Bahi acknowledging receipt of this loan that on 27-5-1945 defendant No. 3 appro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988MP46; 1988MPLJ392
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Two appeals are filed by the same appellant against a common order passed by the trial Court in two suits instituted by the appellant. Both appeals are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 1987, respondents 1 to 3 are Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and its functionaries, while Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior is arrayed as respondent No. 4, because they figured as defendants in Civil Suit No. 39-A of 1982. In other appeal, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1987 which related to Civil Suit No. 35-A of 1987, the defendants/respondents are twosome, namely, the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the Commissioner of the said Corporation. However, in both cases, the lis bears the same complexion inasmuch as by the common order, the trial Court has finally disposed of separate applications made in the two civil suits, one set for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, C.P.C. a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP195
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore against the orders of the assessing authority passed in 1951 assessing the petitioner to Industrial Tax for the years 1940-48 and Excess Profits Duty for the years 1943-46.2. The undisputed facts in this case are these. In the year 1927 a tax was imposed on the cotton mills at Indore in respect of income, profits and gains earned by them. This was under the Industrial Tax Rules 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original Rules') promulgated by the Holkar Government. Under the Rules as amended from time to time, provisional assessments were first made and the amount of tax used to be realized.Later, the assessments were finalised by a Board against whose orders a first appeal lay to the Member-in-charge Commerce and Industry and a second appeal lay to the Government. In 1949 the Rules were amended by the Indore Industrial Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP225
Naik, J.1. The order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956, 20 of 1957, 102 of 1957 235 of 1957 and 268 of 1957.2. All these cases arise out of assessment proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and raise some common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together. In all of them, assessment orders have been made and appeals from the said orders are pending before the appellate authorities under the Act. The petitioners in all these cases are challenging the assessment orders and the notices of demand made thereunder, under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia, on the ground that the assessments in all of them violated Articles 286 and 301 of the Constitution. In letters patent Appeal No. 55 of 1958 Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 412 of 1956 and 20 of 1957, it was also contended that the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Act No. VII of 1956) was Void and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ1344MP; 2000(3)MPHT256; 2000(2)MPLJ249
ORDERS.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard Shri Arun Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri K. N. Gupta, Government Advocate representing the respondent No. I/State on advance notice.2. Perused the record.3. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition praying for a direction requiring the respondents to continue in service of the respondents No. 2 and 3 on the post of Time Keeper and prohibiting them not to terminate his services otherwise than in accordance with law. He has further prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to absorb him in a permanent post according to the rules applicable to the Municipalities and for quashing of the order dated December 31, 1999 issued by the State Government. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to release his salary for the month of December 1999 and onwards.'4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1742
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. This Writ Petition was initially heard by a Division Bench. The two learned Judges of this Court constituting the Division Bench passed separate conflicting judgments/orders which were signed and delivered. In the aforesaid situation treating the case to be one where there was a difference of opinion, a reference was made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to a third Judge. The third Judge/nominated Judge vide the order dated 16-2-1998 returned the reference unanswered to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further appropriate orders indicating that reference was incompetent for the reasons given in that order and the matter required to be placed before a larger Bench which could effectively deal with the situation as it will not be under any inhibition nor incompetent to hear every aspect of the case before it. It was thereafter that Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted the present Full Bench and the Writ Petition has thus come up before it for being heard and disposed of.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in the instant writ petitions and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience W.P.No.4856/2006 is taken as a leading case and its facts are being referred to. The petitioners of the said writ petition are registered trade unions of Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the SPM'). The SPM was set up in the year 1967 by the Union of India and has workforce of more than 2000 employees. It is under the administrative control of Ministry of Finance, Union of India. There are nine industrial units of the Government of India for minting coins and printing currency notes, namely, (i) India Government Mint, Noida, (ii) India Government Mint, Kolkata, (iii) India Government Mint, Hyderabad, (iv) India Government Mint, Mumbai, (v) Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, (vi) Bank Note Press, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997MP8
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of C. R. No. 847/95 (Ramjan Shah and others v. M. P. Wakf Board and others), C. R. No. 893/95 (Siraj and another v. Chandmal) C. R. No. 894/95 (Siraj and others v. Suresh Chandra) and C. R. No. 910/95 (Hussain Shah v. M. P. Wakf Board) as in all these revision petitions common question of law falls for determination. 2. C. R. No. 847/95 and C. R. No.1010/95. In C. R. No. 847/95, plaintiff-petitioners impugn the order dated 26-7-95 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Indore, passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/93 whereby he directed for transfer of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case to the Tribunal. In C. R. No. 1010/95 plaintiffs-petitioners impugn the order dated 2-8-1995 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge Class I, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/93 whereby the aforesaid suit has been transferred to the Tribunal, as constituted under the Wakf Act, 1954. Both the orders arise from the same suit. Facts giving rise to both the petit...
Tag this Judgment!