Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP66
ORDERJ.K. Maheshwari, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of Civil Revision No. 136 of 2008.Both the revisions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the orders passed by the learned XI Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore rejecting the application of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the applicant.2. The facts which are not in dispute that petitioner, a multi-media system operator, has entered into an agreement with non-petitioner on 1-6-2006, whereby the cable lines belongs to them had taken by non-petitioner for operation for the period of three years with effect from 1-4-2006 as per the terms and conditions specified in the agreement. Clause 14 of the said agreement provides for arbitration to a dispute, if any, arises between the parties, which may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by the Arbitrator Mahilpalji and Manish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227
Raina, J. 1. The petitioners, who are advocates practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chief Justice'), dated 5-2-1976.2. This petition raises an important question of jurisdiction of the High Court at its principal seat vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Benches at Indore and Gwalior. The present State of Madhya Pradesh was constituted under Section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 195,6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the appointed day, that is, 1-11-1956, comprising of-(a) The territories of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, except the districts of Nagpur, Chanda, Bhandara, Akola Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha and Buldana; (b) the territories of the former State of Madhya Bharat, except Sunel tappa of Bhanpura tahsil of Mandsaur district;...
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 : AIR1969MP150; 1968MPLJ854
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 112, 131, 151, 152, 153, 229, 249, 295,367, 368, 374, 512 and 537, all of 1966 and Misc. Petition No. 45 of 1967.2. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the validity of Schemes, described as Schemes Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 42, 60 and 61, published by the State Government under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), has been challenged. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-C of the Act, the Madhya Pra-desh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, published proposals in various issues of the Gazette propounding the aforestated Schemes for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Schemes. The notifications publishing the Schemes invited the persons affected by t...
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 : AIR1974MP141; 1974MPLJ257
Tare, C.J.1. This opinion shall govern the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal as also the Second Appeal No 91 of 1966 -- (Durgaprasad v. Chunnilal).2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been referred to this Court for decision of the entire appeal by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 31-3-1971, as also for decision of the question whether a Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a tenure holder within the meaning of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956. That question is also involved in Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966 (Madh Pra). Therefore, by this opinion, we propose to decide that question and later on, we propose to decide the Letters Patent Appeal on merits. On expression of the opinion on the question referred Second Appeal No. 91 of 1966, will have to so back to the Single Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the opinion of this Full Bench. Along with these two cases. Second Appeal No. 447 of 1966 (Madh Pra) -- (Smt. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]246ITR363(MP)
D. P. S. Chauhan, J.1. Threatened with the invasion of their rights, the petitioners, in these two writ petitions, numbered 2593 of 1997 and 1723 of 1998, approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking protection against illegal and arbitrary action against them which tin being heard together are decided conjointly.2. The controversy in these petitions centres round the construction of the house known as 'Dev Shree' and in that regard, the following facts are relevant :Shri Arjun Singh and his wife, Smt. Saroj Singh, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2593 of 1997, and Shri Ajay Singh, their son, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1723 of 1998, after purchasing an agricultural land near Kerwa Dam in village Mandora, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, constructed a house over a portion thereof, named as 'Dev Shree' and which being in the vicinity of Kerwa Dam, was also known as 'Kerwa House' for brevity, is hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT15
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. This order shall also decide the bunch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. : 2591/2000 (Raj Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2603/2000 (Firoz Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2639/2000 (Kanker Roadways and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2674/2000 (Damodar Prasad Asati v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2728/2000 (Smt. Manju Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2729/2000 (Hardeo Motor Transport Company v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2730/2000 (Kailash Narayan Rai and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2741/2000 (Mahendra Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2792/2000 (Ajinkya Air Bus Service v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2846/2000 (Gajraj Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2858/2000 (Smt. Sushila v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2869/2000 (Amrik Singh Sidhu v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2870/2000 (Sanjay Kumar Chourasia v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2945/2000 (Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2988/2000 (Jaiprakash Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors.)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973MP26
Tare, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Contractor, who took the Contract of purchase of Tendu leaves from the Government for the year 1970 under the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vvapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and the M. P. Tendu Patta, Nivamavali, 1965 and 1966, and by this petition, he seeks a renewal of the contract for the Years 1971 and 1972 on the same terms.2. A State monopoly was created by enactment of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vvapar Viniyaman) Adhiniym, 1964, which received the assent of the President on 23-11-1964 and which came into force from 28-11-1964. It will be necessary o consider some relevant provisions of the Act later on. The appellant Firm had purchased the right of collection of Tendu leaves for the year 1970 which provided for a renewal clause for a further period of two years on certain terms. It may be relevant to reproduce Condition No. 25 of the Tender Notice which is as follows:--'25. (1) Unless earlier determined under th...
Tag this Judgment!