Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ821
ORDERR.P. Awasthy, J. 1. It is a Misc. Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (Act in short) against the Judgment and decree dated 11-4-90 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1989, making awards dt. 19-8-1988 and 28-3-1989, made by the arbitrators as rule of the court.2. There is not much dispute about the facts of the case which are as below:--Bhurelal (respondent No. 1) is the father of respondent No. 2 Gajanand and petitioner Govind Prasad, Respondent No. 3 Gopal Prasad Agrawal happens to be the son of Bhurelal. All of the said four persons viz. Bhurelal, Gajanand, Govind Prasad and Gopal Prasad were and are running a partnership business at Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. The name of the said registered partnership concern was and is Mohanlal Hiralal of Itarsi. Respondents 4 and 5 viz. Banwarilal and Gopal Prasad Agrawal were appointed as arbitrators as per arbitration agreement dt. 17-8-1988. The said ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1993MP214
S.K. Jha, C.J. 1. We have assembled today for the purpose of deciding only one incidental matter on which learned counsel for the parties insist. We give our ruling at the outset before we proceed further to hear the counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition. That limited question as to the legality or propriety of the Governor either in his official capacity or by name described as the Governor, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was warranted in law or was. precluded by virtue of the legal immunity attached to the Governor on account of his acts done or purported to be done in his official capacity under the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution of India. While on the one hand, Shri N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner insists that Shri Kunwar Mehmood Ali, Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party and no immunity could be enjoyed by him qua a Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution, It was not only proper but legal for him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ961
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This first appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ECode') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1988 rendered by Vlth Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge. Indore in COS No. 89-A/86 thereby passing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short the 'Act') together with mesne profits @Rs. 115/- per months.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit-house No. 30, Bada Sarafa, Indore originally belonged to the Joint Family of deceased Tejpal and deceased Guljarilal. On partition by a registered partition deed dated 25-2-1953, this suit house fell to the share of Guljarilal. The respondents are the sons of late Guljarilal and the appellant is the son of Tejpal. The respondents came with a case that the appellant occupied the first-floor and one room on the ground-floor as the licensee of the respondents. This licence was terminated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ889
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This Judgment shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 77/76 (Sampatbai v. Rameshchandra and Ors.).2. This appeal, presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25-2-1974 rendered by the third Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in COS No. 7-A/71, thereby granting a decree of specific performance of the contract as regards the suit-house situated at Khachrod.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the house, bearing Municipal No. 33, situated in Derji Ward Khachrod and bounded by the periphery as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, was owned by Shankarlal and Ramchandra (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4). They entered into an agreement to sell on 7-2-1971 with Rameshchandra and Shravankumar (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2) on consideration of Rs. 11,201/- after paying the advance of Rs. 1,000/- and promising the documentation of sale within two months from the date of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(0)MPLJ140
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th February, 1978 rendered by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Jhabua in COD No. 1-D of 77, thereby dismissing the Appellant's suit on the ground of untenability in view of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that parties had faced some dispute as regards monetary liability. They, therefore, referred that dispute to the Panchas in 1974 without intervention of the Court, The panchas passed Award on 27-9-1974. On the basis of that Award, the appellant was held entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the respondents. The parties, on being read over, accepted this award and declared the intention to act according to it. In pursuance of this, the respondent No. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant on 31-10-1974 through panch Bab...
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 : AIR1995MP1
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Certain common questions have been raised in these writ petitions and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in various petitions are owners of motor vehicles such as trucks, jeeps, tractors, stage carriage vehicles etc. On the allegation that these vehicles have been used for removing forest produce contrary to law, they have been seized by Forest Officers or Police Officers and confiscation proceedings have been intiated orabout to be initiated against them. In most of the cases, action is being taken under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, Central Act), as amended by the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983, (for short, 1983 Act). In a few of the cases, action is being taken underthe M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, i.e. M. P. Act 9 of 1969(for short, 1969 Act), as amended by the Amending Act 15 of 1987. In most of the cases, by interim orders, vehicles have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ113
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner No. 1- Smt. Usha Raje is the daughter of ex-ruler of Indore State - Maharaja Yeshwant Rao Holkar. Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 called Princess Usha Trust was constituted by an indenture of trust created by the late ex-ruler executed by him on 10-4-1950. The petitioner No. 4 - Devi Ahilyabai Educational Trust was constituted by a trust-deed executed on 18-12-1973 by Princess Usha Devi who transferred all the properties to the charitable trust.2. Maharaja Yeshwantrao Holkar, the ex-ruler was the owner of all the lands within the Holkar State which included agricultural lands. Before 1950 the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1931 governed the law relating to the land tenures in the erstwhile Holkar State. 'Under Section 27 of the said Act of 1931 the entire land of Holkar State was the property of Maharaja and no person could get any portion of the land without a lawful authority from him. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR1996MP116
U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. In some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6-1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within a local area are challenged. In M. P. No. 1521 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged- In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-1994 is challenged. 2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged the following points for consideration : (i) The impugned notifications relate to lime (stone) and not l...
Tag this Judgment!