Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(8)SC629; 2006(9)SCALE194; (2006)10SCC736
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation and application of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Act') arises for consideration in these writ petitions.Parliament enacted Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short 'the 1948 Act'), in terms whereof the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'MPSEB') was established on 1.4.1957. It was a body corporate in terms of Section 12 thereof. The territorial jurisdiction of the Board was the entire State of Madhya Pradesh as notified and constituted by 'States Reorganisation Act, 1956' (for short 'the 1956 Act').2. A new State known as State of Chhattisgarh comprising of 16 districts carved out of the State of Madhya Pradesh was formed on 1.11.2000. Distribution of assets and liabilities of the States are indisputably governed by the 2000 Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the provisions of Section 58 of the 2000 Act, the State of Chhattisgarh was entitled to constitute its own State Electricity Board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. This batch of petitions has been filed by the petitioners pursuant to the creation of States under the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. The disputes relate to the allocation of the employees of the State Government. It is contended that under the provisions of the Act and policy framed by and or at the behest of the Central Government, options were invited. It is submitted that final allocation has been made and aggrieved by the same these petitions have been filed before this Court claiming reliefs mentioned therein.2. Learned Counsel for all the petitioners stated at the Bar that in the present batch of petitions, none of the petitioners is in judicial service or in the service of Vidhan Sabha. They all are employees of the departments other than the above said departments. It is also stated that some cases are listed at motion hearing and they are being heard analogously with consent of the parties finally, as copies have been supplied and the acknowledgments hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT4(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned tender notice dated 29-1-2001 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No. 2, the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation, has invited bidders for sale of various units in lieu of non-payment of outstanding loan amounts. The petitioner submits that he is the President of District Industries Association, Bilaspur, which has been formed for the welfare of various industries including those mentioned in the advertisement dated 29-1-2001 published in daily Navbharat, dated 30-1-2001. The petitioner further submits that separate Financial Corporation for the State of Chhattisgarh is likely to be reconstituted and while so reconstituting, some policy may be adopted as such it contends that auction should not take place.2. Annexure P-1 is the list of Industries to be auctioned which has been published vide advertisement dated 29-1-2001. The respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1485; [1966]3SCR427
Shah, J. 1. Ramgopal - respondent in this appeal - was a tenant of certain Inam land situate in village Nanda Panth in Indore Tahsil. The appellant Rao Nihalkaran - holder of the Inam - served a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground that he needed the land for personal cultivation, and commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, on July 21, 1950, against Ramgopal for ejectment. The Trial Court decreed the suit. During the pendency of the appeal to the District Court, Indore, by Ramgopal against the decree, Madhya Bharat Muafi & Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection Act 32 of 1954 was enacted, and pursuant to the provisions thereof hearing of the appeal remained stayed till 1960. In the mean time the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of 1959) was brought into force. Ramgopal urged before the District Court that he had by virtue of s. 185 of the Code acquired rights of an occupancy tenant and the appellant's right to obtain an order in ejectment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj234a
Desai, C.J. (1) This special civil application raises important questions of law relating to the construction of some of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. There has been a divergence of opinion between the State Government on the one hand and the Central Government on the other, and divergent views have been held at different times. The petitioners are persons employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the Government of the State of Gujarat. Prior to the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956, they were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the existing State of Bombay. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the State of Gujarat, its agents and servants from implementing the resolution dated 1st April 1960,passed by the Government of the former State of Bombay where under an alteration had been made in the previous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1179; [1964]52ITR443(SC); 1964MhLJ697(SC); [1964]6SCR846
Shah, J. 1. Bhopal Sugar Industrial Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - was incorporated under the Companies Act of the former Indian State of Bhopal. In 1953 the State of Bhopal, which was then a Part 'C' State under the Constitution of India, enacted 'the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, IX of 1953' providing for imposition and levy of tax on agricultural income. The Act was applied to the territory of the entire State of Bhopal and was brought into force on July 15, 1953. 2. By the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 67 of 1956), territory of the Part 'C' State of Bhopal was incorporated with effect from November 1, 1956, into the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, enacted that by the constitution of the reorganized State, no change in the laws in force which immediately before November 1, 1956, extended or applied to any constituent regions, was effected, and territorial references in the laws to an existing Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT1
ORDERS.S. Saraf, J. 1. The factual matrix and the question of law involved being similar, this petition and the following petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. (i) W.P. No. 3525/2001 (Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (ii) W.P. No. 3531/2001 (M.P. High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) (iii) W.P. No. 3551/2001 (Kamal Joshi and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (iv) W.P. No. 3554/2001 (Nemi Chand Nema and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) (v) W.P. No. 3597/2001 (Madhya Pradesh Class-III Government Association v. Union of India and Ors.) (vi) W.P. No. 4129/2001 (Madhya Pradesh Class-III Government Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.). 2. These petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed to quash the following:-- (i) The Notification No. F-A-4-2-2001-I(1)-2171, dated 25-7-2001 issued by the respondent/State of M.P. whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1980MP43a
J.S. Verma, J.1. The question referred to us for decision in the following viz.,--'Whether in compliance with the order dated 5-2-1976 passed by the then Chief Justice (Shiv Dayal, C. J.), it is not necessary to list a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution filed in any of the Bench Registries raising the question of vires of any enactment, rule, order or notification etc. also for motion hearing at the principal seat of the High Court?'2. The identical orders dated 5-2-1976 were passed by Shiv Dayal, C. J. which read as under:--'In exercise of the powers conferred on me by the proviso to the Notification No. 16/20/68-Judl. III, dated November 28, 1968, issued by the President under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, (No. 36 of 1956), establishing a permanent Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, And in supersession of all previous orders so far issued in exercise of the powers under the aforesaid proviso, I hereby order that with effect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2004]137STC269(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The facts and law being common in both the appeals preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.2. The centripetal issue that arises for consideration in both the appeals wherein the order of the learned single Judge are under assail is whether the appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of deferment of tax provided to them under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (in short 'the 1994 Act') after coming into force of M.P. State Re-organisation Act, 2000 (for brevity 'the Reorganisation Act').3. The facts which are essential to be stated are that the writ petitioners were granted benefit of deferment of tax by notification issued on February 19, 1991 under Section 12 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on fulfilment of certain conditions. The State Government had framed a set of Rules called the M.P. Deferment of Tax Rules, 1986 (her...
Tag this Judgment!