Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3095
ORDERB.M. Gupta, J.1. Feeling aggrieved with an order dated 6/9/2007 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 164/07, this revision has been preferred by all the three petitioners. Vide impugned order, the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 9/7/2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in criminal case No. 5279/2007, whereby the learned Magistrate has partly allowed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by respondent-Mamta Bhardwaj, the wife of the petitioner No. 1-Madhusudan Bhardwaj and has- (1) restrained the petitioners not to create any domestic violence with the respondent, (2) directed the petitioners to permit the respondent to share her residence in family house or in alternate, petitioner No. 1 to arrange suitable house of the same status for her, (3) directed the petitioners to execute their bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2010MP6
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Shobhana Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the petitioner-company), is a purchaser of the land, building, plant, machinery, furniture and fixtures belonging to one M/s. Tristar Soya Products Ltd. under liquidation, in sale proceedings conducted by the Official Liquidator, attached to this Court, ordered in Company Petition 11 of 2003, vide order dated July 11,2005. On the aforesaid purchase, having been duly approved by the Company Judge, the possession of the said assets was handed over to the petitioner-company on September 9, 2005.2. It appears that the aforesaid company-in-liquidation, M/s. Tristar Soya Products Ltd. was in agreement for supply of electrical energy with M. P. Electricity Board, the predecessor in interest of M. P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. (hereinafter called as respondent-vitaran company). It is also conceded position between the parties that the company-in-liquidation was a defaulter com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP55
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an application filed by the respondent No. 6, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, for grant of permission to direct the respondents to register motor cycles sold by manufacturers in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The background facts leading to filing of this application are that Writ Petition No. 6969/2006 was filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner stating that a number of road accidents leading to deaths has been taking place in recent years in India calling for concerted and multi-disciplinary preventive and remedial measures. In paragraph 4.30.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that for the death due to motor cycles, the State of Madhya Pradesh is responsible because the registering authorities have been registering the motor cycles in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and in particular Section 44 of the Act. In paragraph 5.15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT186
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the FIR vide Crime No. 44/2005, dated 30-7-2005 registered by Police of Police Station, Brijpur, District Panna (M.P.) against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for commission of breach of Clauses 5,6 (4), 7 (4), 10 (1), 11 and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajnik Nagarik Poorti Vitran Scheme, 1991, M.P. Food Stuffs (Civil Supply and Distribution) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Scheme of 1991').2. Short resume of the facts necessary for decision are that the Junior Supply Officer, Panna, after due enquiry on 13-12-2003 in presence of SDO (Revenue) and Sub Inspector Shri Khurshid Khan, Police Station, Brajpur along with Panchas inspected the Fair Price Shop of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Silghara and Diya a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT383
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the-Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed by District Magistrate on 2-5-2008 in a Criminal Case No. 3/2007 and the order dated 24-6-2008 by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order of externment dated 2-5-2008 has been affirmed. The order of externment has been passed in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) and Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (referred to as 'Adhiniyam').2. The brief facts culled out from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhchain Ward, Tehsil Deori, District Sagar. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on 2/4-2-2008 under the Adhiniyam as to why an action be not taken against him under the Adhiniyam and be externed from the territorial limits of District Sagar and its surrounding districts. As many as 23 cases were reported to be registered against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT374
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the assail is to the constitutional validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 and Section 1-A of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the 1960 Act') and the notification issued under the said provisions. The said provisions were introduced by M.P. Act No. 16 of 2000 by the Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Sambandh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2000 with a stipulation that the said provision would come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint and was brought into force by notification dated 17-5-2006 from the date of publication of the notification. The petitioners have also challenged the notification issued in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the 1960 Act by the State Government whereby it has directed that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to the industries specified in the Schedule to the said notification with a postulate that the said exclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3551
Dipak Misra, J.1. The accused/appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 47/1985 whereby he has found them guilty under Sections 302/34, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months on the first score, rigorous imprisonment for five years each on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of two months on the third count with the stipulation that all the sentences shall be concurrent.2. Briefly stated, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009ACJ1169
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 2, Gwaiior in Case No. 1 of 1995-W.C.A. (Fatal).2. (a) In M.A. No. 734 of 2000 filed by the insurance company, Badri Prasad Tiwari, aged 20 years, husband of Ranidevi, respondent No. 1, died in a vehicular accident on 28.3.1994. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are widow and son of the deceased respectively. The respondent No. 3 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. They filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. The Commissioner by the impugned order has awarded an amount of Rs. 81,864 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 40,000 on delay in paying the compensation and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. Learned Commissioner held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)17VST465(MP)
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similitude and interconnectivity of the controversy that is involved in this batch of writ petitions it is disposed of by a singular order. It is condign to state at the outset that in some of the writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for brevity, 'the 1976 Act') is called in question and prayer has been made to declare the entire enactment ultra vires Articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution and in some of the writ petitions the assail is to the constitutional validity of the notifications issued under the 1976 Act on the foundation that they invite the frown on Article 301 of the Constitution and also fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. Keeping in view the nature of the challenge and the contours of the attack I will advert to the issue of validity of the Act first and thereafter I shall dwell upon the substantiality and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP207; 2009(3)MPHT304; 2009[15]STR3; [2009]22STT105; (2009)22VST170(MP); 2009(5)AIRKarR498
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 2005 was challenged primarily and principally on the ground that there is lack of legislative competence on the part of the concerned Legislature to bring in such a legislation and further, assuming the legislation meets the test of legislative competence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid writ petitions were listed along with W. A. No. 1524 of 2007.2. In the course of hearing of the writ appeal, on behalf of the appellant therein, it was contended that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Vindhyachal Distellaries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [2007] 7 VST 197 (MP) has not appropriately considered the decision rendered in Som Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [1997] 1 ILJ 319 and various other aspects which deserve consideration. The Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!