Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]62CompCas717(MP); 1985MPLJ160
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The decision in this company appeal shall also dispose of Company Appeal No. 2 of 1984 (Kilpest Private Ltd, v. Shekhar Mehra). 2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the company, the managing director and the director of the company against an order dated August 6, 1984, passed by the learned company judge whereby the learned company judge by his order dated August 6, 1984, passed the order for converting the original petition made under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 450 of the Companies Act/1956, into one under Section 433(f) read with rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, holding that the petition shall now be tried as a petition for winding up of the company under the 'just and equitable' clause contained in Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under : The respondent, Shri Shekhar Mehra, initially filed a petition under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 450 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas155(MP)
P.D. Mulye, J. 1. Civil First Appeal No. 71 of 1971 is filed jointly by the insurance company, the owner and driver of the truck, against the judgment and decree dated September 10, 1971, passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 8B of 1969, whereby he has decreed the plaintiff-claimant's suit arising out of a motor accident, for Rs. 33,000 with proportionate costs, out of which the insurance company has been held liable to the tune of Ri 20,000 only.2. Being aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree whereby the learned trial court has not awarded any interest on the amount of compensation decreed, the plaintiff claimants have filed Civil Revision No. 151 of 1971. This judgment shall, therefore, govern the disposal of both these cases.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated in brief, thus : Truck No. MBK 5026 belonged to Nazir Mohammad who is now represented by his legal representatives. His son, Bashir Khan, was the driver of the said t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1986)ACC314; AIR1986MP251; 1986MPLJ689
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1984 (Bapulal Kesharimal & Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjan and Anr.), No. 878 of 84 (Akhtari Begum & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Anr.). No. 3469 of 1984 (Vijay Motor Transport Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.), No. 725 of 1983 (Ramesh Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and Anr.), No. 1599 of 1985 (Ramprasad Purohit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Anr.), and No. 3195 of 85 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.). 2. These petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners who are bus operators, are seeking to quash the notifications issued by the various Regional Transport Authorities, wherein reservation of bus routes for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes has been notified, on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas700(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 377 of 1985 (Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. P. Ltd. v. Dr. Gokuldas], which arises out of the same order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6-B of 1962. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6B of 1962, thereby rejecting the appellants' objection and refusing to set aside the sale in execution case involving mortgaged properties. 3. Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants, M/s. Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indore, mortgaged certain properties, including the land sold, in execution with the State Bank of Indore, which filed a suit No. 6B of 1962 and obtained a decree for Rs. 20,19,435.83 against appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were directors and guarantors of the first appellant, the company. The first execution was filed by the decree-holder-bank o...
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 : [1990]183ITR445(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the cancellation of penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act ?'2. Shri Lahoti appeared for the Commissioner of Income-tax, while Shri J.P. Gupta appeared for the assessee. During the course of arguments in this case, learned counsel for the parties made a statement today that another Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 97 of 1983 in which a similar question was involved and in which also the assessee was represented by Shri J.P. Gupta and Shri Lahoti appeared for the Commissioner of Income-tax, be also taken up and decided along with the Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 43 of 1983. In view of the joint request made by learned counsel for both part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ55
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. It is not in dispute that the applicant i.e. Digamber Jain Hitopadeshini Sabha, Bina was registered as public trust under the provisions of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. The non-applicants made a complaint to the Registrar of Public Trusts, Khurai that the trust property was not being properly managed by the President and the Secretary of the Trust and that they were acting contrary to the purpose of the Trust. On this, purporting to act under section 26 of the Act, the Registrar of Public Trusts applied to the Court for directions in the matter. On receipt of the application, the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar at Khurai registered the case as Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 7 of 1983 and proceeded to deal with it under section 27 of the Act. The complainants were arrayed as the applicants in the case. The public trust, through its Chairman and Secretary, was arrayed as the non-applicant. Certain preliminary objections were raised on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1988CriLJ597
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this Order, M.P. No. 2292 of 1987 A. K. Handa and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. is also disposed of.2. The petitioner is a commissioned officer in Indian Army, having been appointed on 9-2-1964 and he is at present holding substantive rank of Major. He was officiating as Lt. Colonel since 1-4-1984 and was posted as Commanding Officer, Depot Regiment (Corps of Signals) since 8-5-1984. For the year 1984-85, the GOC, MP B & O Area, headquarter Jabalpur, wrote an adverse confidential report dt. 16th May 1985 that while the petitioner's professional competence was very satisfactory and he appears to have had much potential, he would not vouchsafe for the officer's moral qualities, gets into shady financial deals with the money of his subordinates, and his integrity is questionable. Not likely to command respect. In view of this adverse confidential, he was reverted to his substantive rank of Major. The GOC also ordered Genral Court Martial (GCM) against him. The petition...
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!