Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR325(MP)]; 2003(1)MPHT226
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Petitioners in both the writ petitions (W.P. No. 177 of 2001, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. The State of M.P. and Anr. and W.P. No. 1629 of 2001, Daya Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and Anr.) have challenged the competence of Municipal Corporation to impose toll on the entry of vehicles within the Municipal Limits under Sub-section (6) of Section 132 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') and submit that the entry tax is being collected from the bus owners without any authority; more so when tax is being paid under Section 3 of the M.P. Motoryan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short 'the Act of 1991'). Section 6 of the Act of 1991 is similar to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 which imposes bar on any local authority to impose tax in respect of the motor vehicles in question. Contention is that tax is being paid by the petitioners for use of roads maintained by the State, therefore, they can bring in and take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2003MP49; [2004(1)JCR203(MP)]; 2002(4)MPHT463
Dipak Misra, J.1. The term 'Law' is applied and taken recourse to herald the incandescent attributes of civilisation with stupendous felicity and the advancement of society is conditioned by the appropriate legal evolution. Sometimes the law is conceived as 'jus naturale', at times as 'jus civile' and some other times it is equated with 'jus honorarium'. But the term 'jus' is always important. 'Jus' should never succumb to 'Joss'. That is why it has been said that the law is not the study of words alone but a penetration into the study of nature within and nature without which are projected through words that have the moving power of life. For that Simon pure reason William Shakespeare spoke : 'The Law hath not been dead, though it hath slept'. We have embarked upon the subject with the aforesaid prefatory note as our essay and venture is to find out whether by substitution of Section 100A of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') the Legislature by taking recourse to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-05-2002
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
Decided on : Nov-22-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ARBLR553(MP); 2003(1)MPHT205; 2003(2)MPLJ346
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the M.P. Housing Board (judgment-debtor) against the order by which its objections in the proceedings for enforcement of award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') have been rejected. 2. It is not in dispute that the M.P. Housing Board awarded a contract to the respondent/decree-holder on 7-10-1992 for construction of 28 HIG Houses at Kohefiza, Bhopal for Non-Resident-Indians. The contractor was asked to carry out certain works which were not included in the original contract by the Engineer-in-Charge of the work. The contractor as per Clause 13 of the contract was bound to carry out those works. The contractor did those works and completed the construction of the houses. Then arose the dispute for the extra work done by the contractor. 3. Clause 13 of the Contract provides : 'in the event of a dispute the decision of the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the circle shall be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-12-2002
Reported in : 2002(5)MPHT378; 2002(3)MPLJ78
ORDERS.P. Khare, J.1. This is a revision by the tenant under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') against the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on the application of Smt. Nirmal Mitra, a widow, under Section 23-A of the Act.2. It is not in dispute that non-applicant T.D. Agarwal is tenant of applicant Nirmal Mitra on the ground floor of house No. 1, Ridge Road, Idgah Hills, Bhopal at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,200/-. The accommodation is being used for residential purpose by the non-applicant and his family. The accommodation is fully described in the map annexed to the application. It consists of three 'bed rooms', a kitchen, store, 'drawing-cum-dining room', etc. The tenancy commenced from August, 1985. The applicant is a widow and comes in the category of landlord given in Section 23-J of the Act. She is at present living in the 'basement' of this house. She has no other house at Bhopal. The n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-29-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)MPHT388; 2003(4)MPLJ92
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh against the order by which its appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Plaintiff Jalim instituted Civil Suit No. 22-A of 1993 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhatarpur for declaration of title to certain lands which were recorded in the revenue records as belonging to the State. The suit was filed against two defendants Maha Prasad and the State of Madhya Pradesh. It proceeded ex parte. The case of the State is that the summons was not served upon it. Defendant No. 1 Maha Prasad did not contest the claim of the plaintiff rather admitted it. The ex parte decree was passed on 30-6-1993.The appeal against that decree was filed by the State on 7-2-1994. The SDO filed an affidavit in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that the summons were not served and he had no knowledge of the suit or the decree. He came to know about the decree when the Patwari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-25-2002
Reported in : AIR2003MP17; 2002(4)MPLJ321
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The M.P. Human Rights Commission (for short 'the Commission') through its Registrar has visited this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 13-6-2000, Annexure P/9, and to command the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the recommendations of the Commission contained in Annexure P/7, and further to command the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure quality outcome in the 'Eye-Camps' organised by the District Blindness Control Society (DBCS). 2. The facts as have been undraped are that under the National Programme for Control of Blindness, the State of M. P. has been organising eye camps with a view to provide comprehensive eye care to the community in the rural areas. The eye camps include surgical camps. The aims and objects of such camps are to provide medical and surgical treatment for the prevention and control of eye diseases including cataract operation and to educate people in methods of prevention of eye diseases and proper c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-21-2002
Reported in : 2002(2)MPHT132; 2002(3)MPLJ62
K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by defendant/tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 735/2000, dated 3-1-2002. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but has refused decree to the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (c), (k) and (m) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge has confirmed the decree under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act and has also granted decree to the plaintiff-respondent under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant is tenant of the plaintiff on the ground floor of house Nos. 1243 and 1244, Wright Town, Jabalpur at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 1-10-1992 (Ex. P-1). The premises were taken for non-residential purposes to run a clinic and the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-2002
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
Decided on : May-14-2002
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!