Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990MP198
K.K. Verma, J.1. On 12-1-1987 respondent 1 Roop Chand filed an application under Section 151, C. P. C. -- registered as M.C.C. 6/87 -- seeking an order for a clarification in the judgment dated 24-9-1986 of Dr. T. N. Singh, J., in Second Appeal No. 7/86 (Roop Chand v. Bhanu Prakash). On 29-6-1987 the learned single Judge dismissed the application but granted two weeks' time to applicant Roop Chand to deliver vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the landlord-decree-holder, non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, under Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Non-applicant Bhanu Prakash, aggrieved by the grant of two weeks' time to applicant Roop Chand, has filed a L.P.A. under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The learned counsel for respondent 1 Roop Chand has raised a preliminary objection that the present L.P.A. is not maintainable under Section 100A, C.P.C. and also because the impugned order was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971MP51; 1970MPLJ331
Surajbhan, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the Gwalior Agriculture Company, Limited, Dabra (hereinafter called the Company) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Sinchai (Jal Kar Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam 1964 (Act No. 27 of 1964), (hereinafter called the Act of 1964) for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 10 of the petition, and praying for the issuance of a suitable writ and direction restraining the respondents from recovering the charges and penalty imposed on the petitioner under the aforesaid Act of 1964 and for such incidental reliefs as may be found proper.2. The petitioner is a registered company at Dabra and is engaged in the cultivation of sugar-cane besides other crop. Prior to the merger of the United States of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (i.e. the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat) into the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Bharat had passed the Irrigation Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 39 of 1950) (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP35
Shrivastava, J.1. This judgment governs the disposal of twelve Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 8, 9, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 1963 which have all been filed against the order of Sheodayal, J. allowing the several appeals filed by the respondents.2. In order to appreciate the points raised in support of the appeals, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. Chaturbhuj and Sewaram executed two simple mortgage deeds on 4-9-1924 and 30-6-1927 in favour of Pyarelal, Ramlal and Motilal mortgaging their proprietary rights in village Jerwans along with the homefarm (sir and khudkasht) lands. In the second mortgage bond, they had agreed to the condition that they would not lease out the homefarm lands. In spite of this agreement, they leased out the khudkasht lands to several persons. The mortgagors and mortgagees have been succeeded by their legal representatives but it is not necessary to give details. We shall refer to the mortgagees as creditors, the mortgagors as pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ291
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. These appeals have been placed before the Full Bench for determination of the question whether the appeals are maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (Nagpur). We have heard learned counsel appearing for both sides as well as Shri Seth, Advocate who assisted as Amicus Curiae.2. These appeals arise out of proceedings initiated before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for death or injury suffered in motor vehicle accidents. In one case, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition while in other cases, Tribunal passed awards directing payment of compensation specified in the awards to the claimants. The claimant in one case and the Insurance Companies in the latter two cases filed appeals in this Court which were heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judges. These LPAs are filed against decisions of learned Single Judges. Registry has raised objections in all the cases regarding maintainability and they have been placed before the Ful...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995ACJ273
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. These appeals have been placed before the Full Bench for determination of the question whether the appeals are maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent {Nagpur). We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both sides as well as Mr. Seth, Advocate, who assisted as Amicus Curiae.2. These appeals arise out of proceedings initiated before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for death or injury suffered in motor vehicle accidents. In one case, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition while in other cases, Tribunal passed awards directing payment of compensation specified in the awards to the claimants. The claimant in one case and the insurance companies in the latter two cases filed appeals in this Court which were heard and dismissed by the learned single Judges. These L.P.As. are filed against decisions of learned single Judges. Registry has raised objections in all the cases regarding maintainability and they have been placed before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT28
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The substantiality and sustainability of the order dated 13-11-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6124/2007 is in question in this intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The essential facts which are imperative to be adumbrated are that the petitioner-appellant invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 8-5-2007 passed by the Registrar, Trade Union, M.P., the first respondent herein. In the writ petition it was set forth that the workmen employed in the State Bank of India posted at various branches in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh formed a trade union called SBI Workmen Union Bhopal Circle, Bhopal, which is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short 'the Act'). The Union is affiliated to...
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 : AIR1991MP316; 1991(0)MPLJ418
Faizanuddin, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court by the defendants has been directed against the orders passed on 29-6-1990 to 11-7-1990 by the learned single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 227 of 1990.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus: The Indian Olympic Association/respondent No. 3, herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It consists of various Federations which are affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association. The Management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.A.') is controlled by a duly elected Executive Council in accordance with rules for a term of 4 years. A Special General Meeting may be summoned at any time by the President of I.O.A. at his discretion or it is convened on a written requisition signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of not less than 15 Member-Units within one month from the date of recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP22; 2007(4)MPHT545; 2008(1)MPLJ152; 2008(1)AIRKarR353(FB)(MP).
ORDERDipak Misra, J.Introductory backdrop:1. Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5731/2006 the present writ appeal was preferred under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Adhiniyam'). When the same was placed before a Division Bench for the purpose of admission on 20-8-2007 the Bench hearing the appeal took note of the decision rendered in the case of Rama and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 325 (D.B.) : 2007 (11) M.P.J.R. 229, wherein a view was expressed to the effect that an order passed by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the sustainability of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is delineation under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and not in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the dictum propounded in Dr. Ja...
Tag this Judgment!