Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP196
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rules 10 (2), 10(3) and 20(9) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules').2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner, after passing MBBS Degree, was selected and appointed as an Insurance Medical Officer Class II in ESI Service under the Department of Labour, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 4-7-2000. After completing the period of probation of two years, he was confirmed as Insurance Medical Officer Class II on 15-4-2004.3. For admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses, the State Government has framed the rules under Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Sanstha Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1973. Under the rules, a common entrance examination for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree/Diploma courses is to be held for both in-service candidates and open ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT435
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The questions of law involved being similar and the writ petitions being inter linked and inter connected were heard analogously and are hereby disposed of by this common order. As the pleadings are complete in W.P. No. 4072/2002, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts stated therein are adumbrated.2. Before we proceed to state the facts we may profitably refer to a paragraph from the decision rendered in the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Ors. v. Ajit Mills Ltd. and another, (1997) 4 SCC 98, wherein Krishna Iyer, J., in his inimitable style expressed thus :-- '2. A prefactory caveat.-- When examining a legislation from the angle of its vires, the Court has to be resilient, not rigid, forward-looking, not static, liberal, not verbal - in interpreting the organic law of the nation. We must also remember the constitutional proposition enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois viz., 'that Courts do not substitute their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP82
Dipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellants have called in question the defensibility and the legal propriety of the composite order passed by the learned single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions as well as the sustainability of a Singular order passed separately. It is apropos to state here the learned single Judge disposed of eight writ petitions by a common order on the base that common questions of law with slight variation of facts arose for determination and hence, they deserved to be dealt with by a common order. As in another writ petition, the factual matrix was depicted in a different manner he passed a separate order. We may state at the outset that all the writ petitioners have not preferred appeals but only present appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court taking recourse to intra-Court appeal.2. In different appeals facts have been adumbrated in different manners but essentially the facts which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP104; 2004(1)MPLJ188
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-State challenging the judgment delivered by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 1165/2002 decided on 29-1-2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Rambabu Agrawal had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract. Suit was decreed and the Court directed the defendant to execute the sale-deed of the property at Rs. 50,000/-, Sale-deed was executed through Court for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The sale-deed was presented for registration valuing the property at Rs. 50,000/- and stamp duty was paid accordingly. Sale-deed was presented before the Registrar. Registrar without registering the document wrote a note that market value of the property is less than the market value fixed, and referred the matter to the District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Gwalior under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Collector of Stamps issued notice for the purpose of assessing the market value of the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2004MP182
Dipak Mishra, J.1. Expressing the view that the issues involved are of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Mall, v. The Union of India, AIR 1977 Madh Pra 116 (FB) and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan. 1979 MPLJ 644 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 43) (FB), wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not condition precedent to make a reference for a decision of a question by a larger Bench, the Division Bench referred the matter in entirety to be adjudicated by a larger Bench and that is how the batch of cases has been placed before us.2. The bunch of matters can be categorised into two compartments, one batch assail is to certain provisions and rules of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. 1956 (for brevity 'the Act') as ultra vires and in the other challenge is to the certain provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the Municipalities Act) and the rules framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
ORDERR.C. Mishra, J.1. As a common question of law has arisen in both the trials, this order shall govern disposal of interim applications (registered as I.A. No.48/2009 in Election Petition No. 27/2009 and I.A. No. 14/2009 in Election Petition No. 29/2009) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') read with Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for rejection of respective election petitions on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action or a triable issue.2. Incidentally, none of the petitioners is an unsuccessful candidate but each one of them was entitled to vote at the elections in question. The respondent in E.P. No. 27/2009 namely Vishwas Sarang is declared elected to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No.151, Narela whereas the respondent in E.P. No. 29/2009 viz. Dhruv Narayan Singh is the returned candidate to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 153, Bhop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. This order shall decide W.P.6846/09 and W.P. 6847/09 arising out of a common order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 18.12.2008 deciding the matter of petitioner under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 2000-01,2001-02 and 2002-03. So far as the assessment year 2001-02 is concerned, the contention of the petitioner in respect of condonation of delay in filing return was accepted so the petitioner is satisfied with this part of the order. So far as the assessment year 2000-01 and 2002-03 are concerned delay in filing the return was not condoned so these two petitions are filed assailing the aforesaid part of the order separately. W.P.6846/09 relates to assessment year 2000-01 and W.P.6847/09 relates to assessment year 2002-03. To consider the controversy involved in this case, we have taken W.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP13
Lodha, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to us on account of conflict of decisions by this Court on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The order of reference reads as follows:'In view of the importance of the question as also conflict of views expressed in Abid Mohommad Khan v. The State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1956 Madh Bha 259); Ramchandra Gopalrao v. D.I.G. Police (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 126); Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 43) and V B. Kharate v. State of M.P. (1959 MPLJ 534), the case shall be heard by a Full Bench. Accordingly, the case is referred to a Full Bench.'2. Before embarking upon the consideration of the points of law arising in the case we think it proper to give a brief resume of facts.3. The plaintiff-appellant Dinkarrao (to be referred to hereafter as appellant) was Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. A criminal case under Sections 330 and 331, I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1997MP8
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of C. R. No. 847/95 (Ramjan Shah and others v. M. P. Wakf Board and others), C. R. No. 893/95 (Siraj and another v. Chandmal) C. R. No. 894/95 (Siraj and others v. Suresh Chandra) and C. R. No. 910/95 (Hussain Shah v. M. P. Wakf Board) as in all these revision petitions common question of law falls for determination. 2. C. R. No. 847/95 and C. R. No.1010/95. In C. R. No. 847/95, plaintiff-petitioners impugn the order dated 26-7-95 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Indore, passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/93 whereby he directed for transfer of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case to the Tribunal. In C. R. No. 1010/95 plaintiffs-petitioners impugn the order dated 2-8-1995 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge Class I, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/93 whereby the aforesaid suit has been transferred to the Tribunal, as constituted under the Wakf Act, 1954. Both the orders arise from the same suit. Facts giving rise to both the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP58
M. Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an election in the Sehore double-member constituency to the Legisla-tive Assembly of this State. The election took place on 25th February, 1957 and the results were declared on 1st March, 1957. Originally, six persons had offered to contest the two seats, but one of them (Amarchand) withdrew, leaving five in the field. Of these Umraosingh and Mannulal contested the reserved seat, while the remaining three, Inayatullah, Mahajan, and Nandlal contested the general seat. As a result of the poll declared on 1st March, the appellant Inayatullah was declared elected to the general seat while Umraosingh was also declared elected to the reserved seat. The result of the poll was as follows : Umraosingh 23,757Votes(Reserved) Inapatullah 20,696,,(General) C. Mahajan 20,616,,(General) Mannulal 16,599'(Reserved Nandlal 8,997,,(General)) 2. The election was questioned by Diwan-chand Mahajan alone. One of the other candidates Mannulal in his reply rai...
Tag this Judgment!