Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP142; 2008(2)MPHT490
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner, an organization working for the legal rights of oustee families affected by the large dams in the Narmada Valley, has filed this Public Interest Litigation for appropriate directions for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the oustee families of the Omkareshwar Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh.Facts of the case2. The background facts in short are that on 6th July, 1968, the State of Gujarat made a complaint to the Government of India under Section 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 stating that a water dispute has arisen between the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashra over the use, distribution and control of water of Narmada, an inter-State river. The Central Government constituted the 'Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal' (for short 'the NWDT') for adjudication of the water dispute, by notification dated 6th October, 1969 and made a reference of the water dispute to the NWDT. The NWDT made an award, called, the 'N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP133; 2008(1)MPHT534
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The State has challenged order dated 14-2-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior in Revision Case No. 1338/five/2000 by which the Board of Revenue set side the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur, in Case No. 196/B-105/95-06, dated 29-4-2000.2. The facts of the case are that:(a) A sale-deed dated 25-3-1996 was presented to the Sub-Registrar (Registration), Jabalpur by which a piece of land admeasuring 16650 square feet alongwith a house standing on it was transferred by Narendra Agrawal in favour of Smt. Dayalaxmi Sangni for a consideration of Rs. 8000/-. Aforesaid, valuation was put on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Case No. 19-A/1993, dated 10-12-1993. The suit was decided between the parties by a compromise.(b) The Registering Authority, Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur was not satisfied with the market value put in the sale-deed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and sent a proposal to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)215CTR(MP)54; [2009]308ITR380(MP); 2008(3)MPHT432
ORDERS. Samvatsar, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of the following connected appeals. Misc.Appeal (IT) 12 of 2007 shall be the leading case. Misc.Appeal (IT) 11/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kailaras. Misc.Appeal (IT) 13/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambah. Misc.Appeal (IT) 14/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Porsa. Misc.Appeal (IT) 15/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sabalgarh. Misc.Appeal (IT) 16/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Joura. Misc.Appeal (IT) 17/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mehgaon Misc.Appeal (IT) 18/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lahar. Misc.Appeal (IT) 19/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhind. Misc.Appeal (IT) 20/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alampur. Misc.Appeal (IT) 21/2007 Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(4)MPHT92
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal had been preferred by the original plaintiff; Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB), that has been succeeded by M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur during the pendency of the appeal. The Judgment and decree dated 9-10-2001 passed by the 12th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur of dismissal of the suit filed for recovery of Rs. 19,35,410/- has been assailed in the appeal.2. The original plaintiff; MPEB filed suit for recovery of aforesaid amount for which it floated tender notice PRG/SGTPS/T-19 for complete Design, Manufacture, Assembly, Testing at Manufacturer's works, Delivery etc. of equipments and accessories given therein and as indicated in respective tender specification contained therein. The tender specification contained in Section-I; General Conditions of Contract, Tendering conditions, Soil and climatic conditions at site and site facilities available. Section-II contained General specification etc. Technical specification for Vertical Wet pit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)ARBLR296(MP); 2007(4)MPHT444; 2008(1)MPLJ78; AIR2008MP5; 2008(1)AIRKarR319(FB); 2008AIHC390(MP)(FB
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner entered into a works contract with the respondents for construction of a central spillway of Rajeev Sagar Tank Project in Guna District of Madhya Pradesh on 19-2-1999. Clause 4.3.29.2 of the Conditions of Contract provides that any claim valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more will be considered by the Superintending Engineer (for short 'the S.E.') of the Circle and any party dissatisfied with the final decision of the S.E. may refer the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Adhiniyam'). The petitioner made a claim of Rs. 21.81 crores against the State of Madhya Pradesh in its letter dated 7-1-2002. The S.E. rejected the claim and this was communicated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer by letter dated 6-6-2002. Instead of referring the dispute to the Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam, the petitioner filed the M.C.C. under Section 11(6) of the Arbitrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT76
ORDERBrij Mohan Gupta, J.1. Petitioners by Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate.2. Respondent/State by Shri B.D. Mahore, P.P. with Shri M.L. Gupta, Range Officer.3. This petition is for impugning the order dated 27-6-07 passed by ASJ, Sabalgarh in Criminal Revision No. 100/07 by which the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 14-6-07 passed by JMFC, Sabalgarh in Criminal Case No. 296/07 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 451/457 of Cr.PC for handing over Tractor No. MP 06 JA/3236 to them on Supurdgi with a trolley (hereinafter referred to as 'vehicle') seized by a Forest Officer for the offence punishable under Sections 27, 29, 32, 39(1)(d), 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. Facts as argued and as appeared from perusal of the copies of the relevant documents filed on behalf of the petitions, in brief are, that on 5-3-07 at about 4:00 a.m. (in the morning) during c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1559
S.L. Kochar, J.1. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 1016/2006 and appellant Ramesh s/o Bapulal in Cr. Appeal No. 1284/2006 have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each respectively, in default of payment of fine on both counts to suffer additional R.I. for one year passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in ST No. 189/2005 vide judgment dated 8-9-2006.2. It would be appropriate here to mention that the learned trial Court has also passed some strictures against the applicant Kiran Lashkarkar, Town Inspector, Investigating Officer in the aforementioned Sessions Trial and also directed holding of Departmental Enquiry against him. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision for quashment of the aforesaid order. Thus, both the appeals and the criminal revision arising out of one a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT494; 2007(4)MPLJ566
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us pursuant to an order dated 21-11-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4602 of 2000.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the Collector, Bhopal issued an order dated 12-7-1999 in exercise of powers under Clause 6(2) of the M.P. Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition and Price Control) Order, 1977 directing that ail the petrol and diesel pump owners must supply cash memos to consumers in respect of petrol and diesel failing which appropriate legal action shall be taken.3. The petitioners challenged the order dated 12-7-1999 of the Collector, Bhopal in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and contended before the learned Single Judge that under Condition No. 8 of the licence of the petrol and diesel pump owners issued under the M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Control Order, 1980'). it was not necessary to issue a receipt or invoic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ARBLR224(MP)
Arun Mishra, J.1. The appeal has been preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the lessee aggrieved by judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in the case-RSC No. 97-A/01.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 22.11.1985 the appellant firm-M.P. Food Products Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the M.P. Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The Corporation had floated tender for leasing out its Canning Unit at Bhopal. The offer made by the appellant to obtain it on the rent of Rs. 6,663.33 per month, was accepted. Initially the period of lease was 5 years, on 01.04.1986 the possession was given. The rent was not paid and certain disputes were raised by the appellant. One after the other six arbitrators were appointed. First three arbitrators had to be changed, fourth arbitrator Shri S.S. Sharma submitted resignation after recording of the evidence. Fifth ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)MPHT463; 2008(1)MPLJ401
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner joined as 'Kulpati' (Vice Chancellor) of Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalay (hereinafter referred to as 'APS University' for brevity) on 15-9-2003 for a period of four years. Hon'ble Governor of State of Madhya Pradesh in the capacity of 'Kuladhipati' (Chancellor) of the APS University constituted a Committee for making enquiry with respect to various allegations relating to administrative, financial and academic irregularities against the petitioner. It was found prima facie that further enquiry was required against the petitioner within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of M.P. Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'University Act' for short). Accordingly, an order was passed on 23-9-2006 by the 'Kuladhipati' to make an enquiry in public interest vide Annexure A-l. Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to prove his case before the enquiry committee. The Committee lev...
Tag this Judgment!