Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. In W.P. No. 7352/2007, prayer has been made for quashing order (P-4) dated 11.4.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner institution to practice and impart education in alternative system of Electro Homeopathy System of Medicine in accordance with law. Prayer has also been made to issue mandamus directing respondents State to formulate the rules and regulation as well as guidelines by bringing regulatory legislation for Electro-Homeopathy System as per direction of Delhi High Court passed in W.P. No. 4015 of 1996.2. In W.P. No. 2242/2007 prayer has been made to quash order dated 22.1.2007 and communications dated 6.2.2007 and 3.2.2007 issued by the respondents. Further prayer has been made to permit the petitioner institution/College established at Baihar, Balaghat to function and direct the respondents to grant registration to the petitioner institution.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1986MPLJ641
B.C. Varma, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 34 of 1983) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Exhibition of Films by Video Cassette Recorder) Licensing Rules, 1983. The Act came into force in the State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-12-1983 while the Rules from 7-10-1983.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of exhibitors of films through projectors in cinema talkies while petitioner No. 2 is a partner in one of such talkies known as Jayanti Talkies, Jabalpur'. The members of the petitioner association are engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of cinematograph films. Such exhibition of films in this State is regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (No. XVII of 1952) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972. These rules regulate the grant of license for running such exhibition of cinematograph films. The term 'cinema' is defined to mean 'any p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)MPHT198
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The Harda Municipal Council (third respondent) auctioned the lease hold rights (for a period of 30 years) in regard to certain shops owned by it. According to the terms of auction, the Lessees will have to pay the agreed premium and a monthly rent (the rent had to be increased by 25% every three years). The petitioners were the successful bidders in regard to various shops. The third respondent sent communications dated 25-1-2000 to each of the petitioners requiring them to get their lease deeds registered. The petitioners had to pay stamp duty under Article 35 (a) (v) and 35 (c) of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act at conveyance rate in regard to five times the average annual rent and in regard to the premium/advance. The petitioners gave a representation dated 10-9-2001 to the State Government seeking exemption from payment of stamp duty under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in Madhya Pradesh, for short 'the Act'). Such exemption was not g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT360; 2002(3)MPLJ504
S.S. Jha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10 of 1982 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19-6-82 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.2. Objection is raised by the respondents as to maintainability. The appeal was finally heard and decided on 4-9-96 [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 255]. After its decision an application for restoration was filed as some of the respondents were not served and appeal came up for hearing. After restoration of appeal the case was listed again and objection is raised that in view of amendment in Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure this appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is filed against that order.3. It is to be examined whether the appeal is now maintainable in view of amended Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2002. Section 100A is reproduced below:--'100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-- Notwithstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003MP66; [2003(4)JCR320(MP)]; 2003(2)MPLJ290
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. Defendants have filed present appeal challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which suit filed by the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff was decreed for Rs.15.400/-.2. Short facts of the case are that plaintiff entered into an agreement with appellants for transportation of goods from Itarsi Railway station to the godowns of appellants. For this purpose respondent No.1 submitted a guarantee through respondent No.2 New Bank of India. Contention of the plaintiff was that he has completed the work as per conditions of the agreement and was entitled for refund of bank guarantee and in spite of several requests, appellants have not refunded the guarantee amount. On these grounds suit was filed for recovery of Rs.16,900/-.3. Appellants denied the claim contending that plaintiff has committed breach of the agreement. He has not transported 120 bags of sugar in time to godown of defendant at Pipariya and there was delay in transporting the aforesaid sugar....
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 : 2002(1)MPHT315
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The centrum, issue that we are obligated to advert to in this batch of writ petitions, which are inseggregable and inseverable, is 'education' that makes a man a complete human being in its conceptual essence and connotativecontinuum. In the days of yore, a realised poet Bhartruhari sang in the glory of 'Vidya' in the following terms:--'VIDYA NAAM NARASYA ROOPAMADHIKAMPRACHHANNA GUPTAM DHANAMVIDYA BHOGAKARI YAASHAH SUKHAKARIYIVIDYA GURUNAM GURUHVIDYA BANDHUJANO VIDESHGAMANEVIDYAPARAM DAIVATAMVIDYA RAJASUPUJYATE NAHI DHANAMVIDYA BIHINAH PASHUH.'A free translation of the aforesaid verse would mean that education is the most resplendent exposition of a man and in it inheres the concept of quintessential treasure. It is the bedrock of all happiness, fame and pleasure. Education is the preceptor of the teacher and acts as a dear friend in travel and is the supreme God, the creative intelligence. It is education but not money which is honoured and respected in the roy...
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 : 1994(0)MPLJ342
ORDERS.K. Chawla, J.1. The question involved in this writ petition is, whether a petitioner can justly invoke the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India to seek Court's direction to the State commanding it to do an illegal act in favour of the petitioner, if only because the State in its. action committed the same kind of illegal acts in favour of some others? Couched in this verbiage, the question admits of a simple anwser in the negative. But the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make out a plausible case of hostile discrimination against the petitioner.2. First the facts. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Udenia is an M.B.B.S. and Assistant Surgeon in the employment of the State of Madhya Pradesh since 14-4-1988. After having worked in outlying Government hospitals, he is working in the Department of Medicine in G. R. Medical College and J. A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior since November, 1989 vide Annexure P-IV On 1-6-1992, the Director of Health Services, Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1957MP165
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking ii writ of prohibition against the District Judge, Bhind who is hearing an election petition. The facts of the case go far back and will have to be stated at some length.2. In the year 1955 in, the town of Gohad a municipal election was held. The petitioner Biharilal was a candidate in Ward No. 3, and the first three respondents were his rivals. The petitioner secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected. The first respondent filed an election petition under Section 10 of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 (Act No. 1 of 1954) read with Rule 131 of the Rules framed thereunder. Before the District Judge an objection was taken to his jurisdiction to entertain the election petition, which the District Judge overruled.Against the order of the District Judge and to seek a writ of prohibition a petition was filed in the High Court of Madhya Bharat, and the High Court acting on its own ...
Tag this Judgment!