Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been referred by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the principle expounded in the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Fatehchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and others (2009 (4) M.P.L.J 50). 2. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench have been formulated by the Division Bench in F.A. No.514/2012 and F.A. No.1134/2012 vide order dated 28.11.2014, as follows:- 1. Whether the ratio of the decision in Fateh Chand Supra (supra) is correct?2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, AIR 1960 SC 980 has application to Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008? 3. M.A. No.1774/2011 has been ordered to be heard analogously with the two appeals vide order dated 01.09.2015, hearing whereof was already in progress on the aforesaid two questions. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition is filed under Section 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) for restoration of company Shree Mohan Sugar Mills Limited . 2. Facts as narrated in the petition are that the company was doing its business as per the object clause but it could not get profitable business. The repeated efforts to fetch good profit could not succeed. Since Company was not profit making company, it could not file the annual return and balance sheet with the Registrar of Companies ( ROC). In 2011, company intended to file some documents on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. On perusal of the site, it appeared that name of company is struck off from the statutory register. It is pleaded that in response to the enquiry made by the petitioner-company, it is learnt that in the year 2007 suo motu action for struck off the name was taken by the ROC. Name of company was finally struck of on 28.01.2008. The ROC informed the petitioner that if petitioner wants to restore the name of compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. Parties were heard on IA No. 2952/2014, an application filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 81 (3) read with Section 86 of Representation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the 'RP Act') for dismissing the petition, IA No. 2953/2014, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC read with Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for dismissing the election petition and IA No. 3224/2014, another application filed under Section 81(3) read with Section 86 of the RP Act. 2. The petitioner, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), submitted his nomination to contest the State Legislative Assembly Election of 2013. The nomination form was submitted for Constituency No. 11, Lahar district Bhind. The respondent No. 5 also submitted his nomination form with requisite affidavit for contesting the election. The nomination form and affidavit of respondent No. 5 was scrutinized by the officers of the Election Commission. The petitioner submitted his objection against the nomination form a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.9860/2012(S) Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh & otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.11083/2012(S) Devendra Kumar Tiwari -Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12298/2012(S) Arvind Kumar Upadhyay and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12302/2012(S) J.P.Soni and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.And. WRIT PETITION NO.22145/2012(S) Deepak Kumar Shrivastava and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. 2 Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri B.L.Nag, learned counsel for the interveners......[in W.P.No.9860/2012(S)].Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Arbitration Appeal No.3/2008 1. ANSALDO Energia, S.P.A., A Company duly organized and existing under the Laws of Italy with its Principal Office located in via N. Lorenzi, 8, 16152, Geneva, Italy.2. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, (Formerly known as ANSALDO Services Private Limited), having its Registered Office at No.50/1, Residence Road, Third Floor, Gupta Tower, Bangalor025. ..........APPELLANTS Versus 1. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Through its Secretary, Shakti Bhawan, Nayagaon, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. M.P. Power General Co. Ltd., Through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Nayagaon, Jabalpur (M.P.) ..........RESPONDENTS Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain ___________________________________________________________________ Shri S.U. Kamdar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Nahoush Shah, Shri Manot Sharma and Shri Alok Hoonka, Advocates for the appellants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
F.A. No.112/1991 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA First Appeal No.112/1991 (Date of filing of Civil Suit :11. 03.1976) APPELLANTS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh through Defendant No.4 the Collector, Hoshangabad. Defendant No.1 2. Competent Authority, M.P. Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act, Harda. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Mohan Sugar Mills Limited Plaintiff No.1 Registered Office, Harda. Plaintiff No.2 2. The Central Trading Company Private Ltd., Registered Office, Harda. Defendant No.2 3. Seth Vallabh Das Modi (since deceased) not by LRs:- (i) Smt. Pushpa Devi wd/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi, (ii) Krishna Das s/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi (iii) Brijesh Das s/o Seth Vallabh Das Modi All R/o 145, Garhi Pura, Harda (iv) Smt. Chandawali w/o Ramnarayan, R/o Somani Mohalla, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (v) Yamuna Devi w/o Mahesh Kumar Dalni, R/o Agrawal Colony, 499, Jabalpur. (vi) Smt. Mridula Vyas w/o Narendra Kumar Vyas, R/o 860, Mahaveer Nagar, II Kota...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.11811/2008 (s) Ku. Jayshree Nandeshwar Vs. The State of M.P. & another Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.& Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.______________________________________________________ Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________ ORDER (...82013) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures P/1 and P/ 2 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively removing her from service.2. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 22.1.2008 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after conducting a departmental enquiry into certain 2 allegations of misconduct committed by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.22017 of 2011 M/s Ideal Minerals and another Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioners : Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/ : Shri Ashok Chourasia, Govt. Advocate. State For respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, Advocate. ORDER (07.08.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no.5 revisional authority (Constituted under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (In short the Act) in revision application/file No.16/04/2007-RC-II whereby, dismissing their revision filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 ( in short MCR), the order No.2-64/05/12 dated 27.10.2006, passed by the respondent no.1 State of M.P., allowing the respective applications...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Election Petition No.20/2009 Ramlal Kol, son of Ramsharan Kol, aged about 36 years, resident of village Hirwara, Tahsil Mudwara, Distt. Katni ...Petitioner Versus Moti Kashyap @ Motilal, son of Late Mewalal, resident of 1220, Durga Chowk, Phootatal, Ravindra Ward, P.O. Gurundi Bazar, Jabalpur ...Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner. Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing :10. 1.2013 Date of Judgment :10. 4.2013 JUDGMENT In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent to Badwara Legislative Assembly Constituency No.91 has been called in question on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of Representation...
Tag this Judgment!