Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP237; 1970MPLJ622
Naik, J.1. The question which has been referred to the Full Bench for decision is whether the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Jagannath v. Harisingh, 1968 Jab LJ 566 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 56) and Poonamchand v. Ramprasad, 1968 Jab LJ 583 = (AIR 1969 Madh Pra 44) laid down the correct law. According to the aforesaid decisions, where a suit of a small cause nature is instituted and tried as a regular suit in contravention of the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the judgment so rendered In it is one which is without jurisdiction and nullity.2. The facts giving rise to the reference may shortly be stated as follows!The plaintiff-appellant Tikaram, on 6-5-1965, filed a civil suit in -the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Narsimhapur, inter alia, for the recovery of Rs. 303.45 alleged to be due on account of the balance of unpaid consideration in respect of the sale of the plaintiff's Khasra No. 125, area 9.90 acres, situate in mouza Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1975]35STC298(MP)
P.K. Tare, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Board of Revenue, on a direction given by this court dated 15th January, 1969, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 233 of 1967, has referred the following two questions for our opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material to enhance the gross turnover from Rs. 5,02,456 to Rs. 5,18,755 and whether the enhancement was legal and(2) Whether the sales of batasa, sugar-candy and chironjidana can be regarded as sales of sugar within the meaning of entry No. 41 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. This reference had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by B. Dayal, C. J., and S.P. Bhargava, J., which by order dated 16th July, 1971, directed that the entire reference be placed before a Full Bench to consider whether the question decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Channulal Motilal v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1979MPLJ344
G.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 1, Special Area Development Authority for the Korba Special Area, is constituted under Section 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M. P. Act No. 23 of 1973). The petitioner-company is an industrial unit in the Korba Special Area. By notice, dated 15th April, 1977, the respondent, development authority, made a demand of Rs. 13,22,100 as property tax for the year 1976-77 from the petitioner-company. By another notice, dated 16th July, 1977, the development authority demanded Rs. 13,65,673.50 as property tax from the petitioner-company for the year 1977-78. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the legality of the aforesaid two demand notices.2. Before referring to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have in mind the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP196; 2002(2)MPHT353
Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this writ petition it is imperative to bestow our anxious consideration on the long debate and deliberation that took place consuming quite a speck of time relating to contentious issues which took us in the time machine as the subject related to the past, creating defiant walls and artificial palisade and some times brought us to the present in capitivative fascination having an ineffaceable sense and purpose of modernity and progressiveness which, at times generated a feeling of puzzlement but definitely the incrassation and intenseness of proponements cannot be surveyed with disposition of a disregardant. We are deliberating and articulating about the 'vedas' the 'Apaurusheya'. The Vedas, as has been said, are the means for attaining knowledge, happiness through wisdom and self realisation which are beyond the sphere of perception or inference. So it is said :'PRATYAKSHYEANNU MANENA YASTU POYO NA ENAM BIDANTI VEDANA TASHMAD VEDASYA VEDATA'Possibly, for this rea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT240
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 20-2-2008 passed by learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P. No. 14220/2007 (S).2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was born in District Rewa in the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1986 and did his schooling in schools situated in District Rewa upto Class IX, but he studied in Class X in Durg and passed Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur in 2002. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 25-3-2006 for recruitment to the post of Constable, the appellant applied and was selected, but by a communication dated 22-9-2007 of the respondents he was informed that his name has been deleted from the select list as he had not obtained educational qualification from any school situated in Madhya Pradesh. Aggrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP101; 1981MPLJ260
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 324 of 1977.2. These petitions involve the construction of Section 4 of the Madhya Pra-desh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, as it now stands.3. The Bill of the principal Act i. e. the Act as originally enacted was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette of 15th September, 1959. The principal Act received the assent of the President on 20th September, 1960 and the assent was first published in the Gazette on 1st October, 1960. The Act was enforced by a notification issued under Section 1 (3) with effect from 15th November, 1961. Section 7 of the principal Act fixed 28 standard acres as the ceiling limit of land which could be held by a person. The principal Act also made provision for declaring void transfers under Section 4 and for preventing transfers under Section 5, The first set of amendments of the principal Act were made by Acts Nos. 35 of 1961, 38 of 1965 and 25 of 1966. These amendments were give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP132; 1969MPLJ751
Pandey, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari three orders: (i) one dated 15 May 1963 by which the State Government provisionally absorbed the petitioner as from 1 November 1956, on a post borne on the cadre of Overseers Electrical/Mechanical for purposes of the Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959; (ii) another dated 1 April, 1964 by which the petitioner was intimated that the Central Government had rejected his representation dated 29 December, 1961 against the provisional combined gradation list and (iii) the third dated 4 June, 1965 by which the gradation list was made final as published in the M. P. Rajpatra Extraordinary dated 18 June, 1965. The petitioner has further claimed a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing that the post formerly held by him in the erstwhile State of Bhopal be equated with posts higher than those held by Overseers and his pay scale be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975MP196
A.P. Sen, J. 1. This appeal, filedby the plaintiff Durga Prasad, is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chhind-wara, dated 25-7-1970, decreeing his claim for damages for Rs. 36,000/- for wrongful extraction and sale of about 1,800 tons of manganese ore against the defendant No. 1, Mst. Parveen Foujdar, together with interest at 4% per annum thereon from the date of the decree i.e., from 25-7-70 till realisation, as against his claim fox recovery of damages amounting to Rupees 50,000/- for loss of profits due to wrongful extraction and sale of manganese ore, and dismising his suit against the other defendants, including the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh.By the appeal, the plaintiff seeks a modification of the decree, and prays that the dismissal of the suit against the defendant No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh be set aside, and a decree for Rupees 50,000/- as damages be passed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 3. There is no appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1238MP; 1992(0)MPLJ941
S.K. Dubey, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/State of Madhya Pradesh, has challenged the award (Annexure P/1), dated April 23, 1988, in Case No. 35 of 1986 Industrial Disputes Act (Ref.), by Labour Court 1, Gwalior, whereby the order, dated June 16, 1982, of termination of the services of respondent-1 was declared non-est, because of non-compliance of i Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), and respondent-1 was ordered to be reinstated from the date of his termination, with half back-wages.2. Sri S.B. Mishra, learned Government Advocate, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Ors. v. Basant Kumar Pandey 1991-I-LLJ-323, which relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee AIR 1980 SC 840 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Guna Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sompra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP339
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern Misc. Petitions Nos. 271, 301 and 320, all of 1962.2. These are four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by private limited companies engaged in the business of plying stage carriages challenging the vires of Sections 2 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Amendment and Validation Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Validating Act). The petitioners seek a declaration that the said provisions are constitutionally invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable, and pray that a suitable direction be issued to the opponents forbearing them from giving effect to those provisions in any manner whatsoever.3. The matter arises thus. In 1959 the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) was enacted. It came into force on 1st February 1961. By Section 3(1) of the Principal Act, it was provided that on the commencement of that Act 'ther...
Tag this Judgment!