Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ875
K.M. Agarwal, J.1. Twenty-one out of fifty-seven respondents in the writ petition have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed on 26-4-1985 in Misc. Petition No. 305/78 by learned Single Judge of this Court. (Reported in 1986 MPLJ 347)2. Bikal Bihari Soni, Vijay Kumar Pathak and Mandla Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh, Mandla, filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondents 5 to 57 in the writ petition to the posts of Managers for Tribal Service Co-operative Societies at village level made by the appellant No. 21 in pursuance of instructions issued on 25-2-1978 (Annexure R-2) by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh. Bikal Bihari Soni was initially joined as respondent No. 1 in this Letters Patent Appeal but his name was struck out. Similarly the names of respondents 7 to 39 in this Letters Patent Appeal were also struck out, though they were parties to the writ petition as respondents. It appears that their names were struck...
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!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, has award the sentence of death to respondent/accused and has made reference of the proceedings to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence passed by the impugned judgment. The appellant has challenged the conviction and the sentence of death and other sentences awarded to him by the trial court. Since the reference and the appeal arise out of the same impugned judgment, both are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appellant Mohd. Shafiq has filed the appeal against the judgment dated 18.1.2010, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.329/2009, convicting him under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death for committing murders of Sanjida, Rubina and Amina with fine of Rs.3000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 10-10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- - 1000/- on two counts and simple imprisonment for one year, on each count respectively. Sentences of imprisonme...
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 : 1999(1)MPLJ16
C.K. Prasad, J.1. Appellant, the writ petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 20-2-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4049/95 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent of the Court. By the said order, learned Single Judge has dismissed his writ petition.2. Appellant was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Moha Putka and by show-cause notice dated 19-4-1995 (Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition) he was asked to show cause as to why he be not removed from the office of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Later on, by order dated 17-7-1995, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39(1 )(b) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, he was put under suspension with immediate effect. Appellant challenged the same and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders by filing a writ petition which as stated earlier, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is relevant here to state that wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1981MPLJ706; [1983]53STC271(MP)
ORDERK.K. Dube, J.1. The petitioner desiring to file a revision under Section 39 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, sent his revision application by registered post on 7th October, 1976. The limitation for revision is one year and according to the department would expire on 7th October, 1976. The revision thus sent reached the authority concerned on 12th October, 1976. The revising authority after giving a show cause notice as was necessary under the Rules, dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not made within the period of limitation. In the view taken by the department, the revision application, even though sent by post, ought to have reached the revising authority before the limitation expired. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Section 39(1)(b) provides for a dealer to make a revision application within the prescribed period. Under Rule 57(4) a revision application has to be, as far as pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994MP151; 1994(0)MPLJ657
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Order in this appeal shall also govern disposal of L.P.A. No. 2 of 1993 (Dinesh Kumar Dubey v. Krishna Kumar Das and two others), as the point for consideration is analogous.2. The brief facts necessary as to how the question arose and the matter was referred to the Full Bench, are as follows: The respondent No. 4 Pankaj Kumar Chatterjee filed a suit for declaration and parmanent injunction in the court of the District Judge, Jabalpur, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 98A of 1991. The reliefs sought in the suit are:(a) That the defendant No. I (appellant), President of the Society, be restrained from functioning as President of the Society; (b) That the defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 1) Shri M.M. Dubey, be restrained from functioning as Principal of the N.E.S. Law College and from intefering with the working of the college; and (c) That the defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 2) Shri S.K. Tiwari, be restrained from functioning as Principal of the Naveen Vidhya B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP199; 1969MPLJ937
Naik, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this civil revision may shortly be stated as follows;The non-applicant plaintiff Pooranchand filed a civil suit (civil suit No. 31-A of 1958) on 25-8-1958 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge Jabalpur, challenging the adoption of the applicant-defendant Komalchand as the son of one Halkoolal. The suit was dismissed for default of his appearance on 22-4-1959, presumably under Rule 8 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the same date an application for restoration of the suit was made by him under Rule 9 of Order 9 ibid, which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 3 of 1959. This application was also dismissed for default of the plaintiffs appearance on 3-9-1959.Against the aforesaid order, dated 3-9-1959, the plaintiff non-applicant on 30-11-1959 filed an appeal (Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 161 of 1959) in the High Court under Rule 1(c) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal was dismissed su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP35
T.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 22-2-1986, On that date, the question of court-fees was left open. Indeed, from order dated 2-1-1986, it appears, exemption was claimed in respect of court-fees.2. Accordingly, the left-over question has to be decided first. In the memorandum of appeal, at para 5, it is stated that the appellant Banwarilal, carrying on business under the name and style M/s. Jagdame Niwad Company, is an ex-serviceman, drawing monthly pension of Rs. 300/- and his annual income from all sources did not exceed Rs. 6000/-. It is also stated that he was a member of a weaker section of society. He accordingly claimed exemption from payment of court-fees, invoking Government Notification No. F.9.83-B-XXI, dated 1-4-1983. An affidavit also he filed in that regard at the time of presentation of the appeal along with copy of the Notification. Subsequently, on 14-2-1986, he filed two certificates -- one by Tahsildar himself certifying appellant being a member of a backw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP232
R.S. Garg, J.1. The two petitions filed by the different petitioners are raising identical question, therefore, the arguments were simultaneously heard. This common order shall decide both the writ petitions.2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions are that the petitioners have filed these petitions submitting inter alia that the provisions contained in M.P. Upkar (Dwitiya Sansodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001 by which the Energy Development Cess which is payable by the distributor of the electricity energy to the State Government has been increased from 1 paise per unit to 10 paise per unit is ultra vires the M.P. Upkar Adhiniyam, 1981 and is also ultra vires Section 12(3) of the M.P. Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2001. It is also submitted that the amendment made by the Amending Act is not unconstitutional and the same is arbitrary.3. In the matter of M.P. Cement Manufacturers Association, it is the case of the petitioner that it is an association of cement manufacturers duly r...
Tag this Judgment!