Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995MP57
ORDER1. This order also governs the disposal of M. P. No. 2037/93 (Kedia Leather v. The M. P. Pradushan Niyantran Board). M.P. No. 692/92(Kedia Leather v. The M. P. Pradushan Niyantran Board), M. P. No. 2129/93 ( Kedia Distilleries Ltd. v. M. P. Pradushan Niyantran Board). M. P. No. 2040/93 (Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. M. P. Pradushan Niwaran Mandal).2. In each of these petitions, presented under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, order passed by the respondent (M. P. Pollution Control Board), directing stoppage of production, is under challenge.3. The petition wise facts in brief are as under:--(a) M. P. No. 2038/93. The petitioner No. I is a company and owns a factory located at village Sojwaya, District Dhar. It manufactures and distributes Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). It procured registration as Small Scale Industries on 27-11-84. It constructed lagooning system of effluent treatment plant along with the distillery. The Respondent issued show cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP33; 1958CriLJ181
Samvatsar, J.1. This revision application is filed by accused Haji Usman who has been convicted of anoffence under Section 46 (a) of the Ayat Niryat Kar Vidhan, Samvat 2006 read with Madhya Bharat Government Notification No. 7 dated 14th August, 1948 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly stated as follows :2. On 2-11-1950 the petitioner despatched from his shop at Dewas 309 tins of groundnut seed oil for being exported to the then Bhopal State. The truck in which these tins were being carried was checked a little aheadof Daulatpur Custom Post in the territory of Madhya Bharat and as export of this oil from Madhya Bharat was then prohibited, the tins were seized and the accused-petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate First Class, Sonkatch.3. The accused denied having committed any offence but the learned Magistrate found Mm guilty and sentenced him to suffer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP81; 1965MPLJ96
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an application by the proprietors of an industrial unit consisting of number of factories in an enclosed area covering more than ten acres and assessed to a building tax (bhavan kar) at the minimum rate of 4 annas per hundred square feet of ground area, by the local authority, which is the Gram Panchayat Susari in Tehsil Kukshi of District Dhar. This is the non-applicant No. 1and for the reasons, that will presently appear, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been made opposite party No. 2. Because the area is several hundred thousand square feet, the bhavan kar assessed is Rs. 1066/- per acre.The prayer is that this assessment should be declared illegal, because for one thing, the law under which it is being levied is bad for excessive delegation to the Government, and further the legal position is worsened by a second delegation on the part of the Government to the Director of Panchayats, and a further delegation by him at least of part of the power to the local a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IIILLJ648MP; 1991(0)MPLJ284
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. Writ of prohibition/mandamusis prayed by petitioner to restrain Union of India and others from pursuing a misconceived proceeding at a forum of incompetent jurisdiction, to nip in the bud the mischief complained.2. Facts of the case for disposal of the instant petition are few and admitted and those we state at the outset. Petitioner has been in the service of the Central Railways and during the relevant period he was posted at Gwalior Railway Station as Travelling Ticket Examiner. During the period, 2.1.1987 to 10.11.1987, it is alleged, he committed certain fiscal irregularities and an order was accordingly made for deduction from his salary of certain amount. That order was challenged under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, P.W. Act) in Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior. On 11.10.1989 directions were made by that Court in those proceedings against authorities concerned that they shall not give effect to the order passed for deduction from petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1999)DMC489
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Despite stringent laws and provisions for deter- rent punishments in them, crimes against women could not be contained because of absence of change in attitude of society towards women and the curse of age-old vicious customs.2. In this case, the victim is a graduate married young girl Sushma Gupta who was found dead with extensive burns all over her body and eight injuries on her person. She has left behind her child Dheeraj, only aged about one year at the time of her death.3. Deceased Sushma was daughter of Amarnath Gupta (P.W. 4) who is an Advocate at Allahabad. Ravi Gupta and Rajesh Gupta (P.W. 11) are her brothers. Nirmala (P.W. 5), Manjula (P.W. 6) and Sarla (P.W. 14) are her sisters. Nathulal Gupta (P.W. 15) is the husband of Sarla and is brother-in-law of the deceased.4. Sushma was married to Pankaj Gupta (appellant No. 2) on 2nd of February, 1987. He is son of Ram Vishnu Gupta (appellant No. 1) who is an Advocate practising at Shahdol. Accused-appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP166; 2000(2)MPLJ1
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Associated Cement Companies Ltd., has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of demand dated 19-10-95, Annexure-P-6 and further to declare that respondent No.2,Minicipal Council, Kymore is not entitled to impose any export tax on petitioner's finished goods which are despatched by rail to any destination and further to restrain them from levying such tax,2. The facts as have been depicted in the petition are that the petitioner is a Limited Company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Bombay. It is enganged in the business of manufacturing cement. It has its factory at Kymore in Tahsil Vijayraghavgarh in the district of Jabalpur. The village Kymore, as pleaded, owes its existence because of the petitioner and Eternit Everest Limited which has set up its cement plant adjacen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ693
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 from issuing prospective licence in his favour for lime stone in the area of 14.733 hectares of land comprising survey No. 39/1 in village Morka Tahsil Jawad Dist. Mandsaur. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from issuing mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4. Further prayer has also been made for quashing of prospective licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4. Yet another prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from entering into mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4.2. It is relevant here to state that this writ petition was filed on 30-8-1995 and after filing of the said writ petition, on 29-11-1995 mining lease has been granted to respondent No. 4.3. Shorn off the unnece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP110; 1961CriLJ516
Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, on 11-4-1958 ordering the petitioner to leave India on the ground that he is a Pakistan citizen and has overstayed the period of his visa. Ten other similar petitions involving commonquestions of law were heard along with this petition. They are: S. No.Case No.Filed by.1.Misc. Pet. No. 290/1958Mohammad Murtaza Khan2.Misc. Pet. No. 61/1959Issab alias Yusuf3.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 39/1958Akbarkhan Alam Khan4.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 59/1958Maujmabibi & others5.Misc. Pet. No. 139/1957Kalloo s/o Noor Mohd.6.Misc. Pet. No. 206/1957Gulam Rasool7.Misc. Pet. No. 6/1958Mohammd Yusuf8.Misc. Pet. No. 168/1958Mohammad Abbas9.Misc. Pet. No. 70/1959Shabrati s/o Mangoo10.Misc. Pet. No. 371/1958Ghulam Mahmmmod KhanAll these petitions, except S. No. 3, are directed against the orders of the District Superintendent of Police or the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!