Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT131; 2000(3)MPLJ318
ORDERR.B. Dixit, J.1. The notice issued to the contemner to show cause, sets out the events that took place in the Court of Election Judge (Before Hon'ble Shri S.S. Jha, J.) in Election Petition No. 47/99 on 5-5-2000, the record of the events is as under:'Petitioner (contemner) in person.Respondents No. 2 and 3 by S/Shri R.A. Roman & T.C. Singhal, Advocates.Respondents have moved an application that Election Commission and Returning Officer are not necessary party to the petition under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, they are not necessary party.Petitioner started arguing in person and he misbehaved in the Court and insisted that he has a right to challenge the ultra vires of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. When he was asked to point out the provision under which he can challenge it, he became unruly and started shouting in the Court. He started thumping rostrum of the Court, therefore, guard was called and he was taken out of the Court. Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)MPHT222
1. In this appeal preferred under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the POTA') the defensibility and pregnability of the order dated 29-11-2005 passed by the Special Court under the POTA at Jabalpur in Misc. Cr. No. 3439/2005 whereby the Designated Court has declined to admit the appellant to bail has been called in question.2. The factual score as frescoed is that the house of Uday Pratap Singh, the father of the accused appellant, was raided in pursuance of execution of warrant of arrest in connection of Crime No. 93/93 under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act pending before the learned Special Judge, Allahabad. During the raid the concerned police officer and his team found Uday Pratap Singh standing with one AK 56 rifle with black colour belt hanging on his right shoulder. On being asked to produce the licence, said Uday Pratap Singh could not produce the licence nor was he ready to divulge how he had acquired the said weapon along with the bullets. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008MP59; 2008(1)ARBLR638(MP); 2007(4)MPHT503; 2007(4)MPLJ531
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. A Division Bench hearing the Civil Revision No. 142/2005 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Shekhar Constructions) expressed its doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision rendered in Civil Revision No. 1/2006 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Shriram and Sons) and referred two questions to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench. The two questions framed by the Division Bench are as under:(i) Whether after amendment in Section 19 of the Adhiniyam application for extending the period of limitation in filing revision can be entertained if Court is satisfied that petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause can be examined by the Court in cases where cause of action for filing revision is accrued to the petitioner under the unamended provision of Section 19 and period of limitation is expired before the amendment in the Adhiniyam?(ii) Whether the application to condone the delay will be maintainable and the amended provision of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ353MP; 2002(1)MPLJ385
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. All these petitions challenge orders identical to the order dated November 27, 1999 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Labour Court and order Annexure P/7 dated February 23, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court affirming the said order Annexure P/5 in Civil Appeal No. 260/99/MPIR in the case of the employee Budha Rao Magarde in W.P. No. 3510/2000 and were, therefore, analogously heard and are being decided by this common order on the basis of the facts of W.P. No. 3510/2000 / Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Ors. v. Budha Rao Magarde and Ors.. The employee in each of the above cases had approached the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act for short) for seeking classification on the post on which he had been working in the Kolar Project of the petitioner Public Health Engineering Department. It is not disputed that the employees were inducted on daily wages from 1989 onwards till 1993.2. The case of the employees befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ409
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Can a meeting summoned with a view to express no confidence can be adjourned for want of quorum? This precise question has been raised in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition be noticed as under.3. The petitioner is a Member of Zila Panchayat, District Morena. Some Members of the Zila Panchayat moved the competent authority for getting a meeting convened for the purposes of expressing no confidence. This meeting was scheduled to be held on 9th of December, 1995 at 1.30 AM. The presiding officer found that quorum was not available. He adjourned the meeting to 20th of December, 1995. The information given by the presiding officer that the meeting has been adjourned from 9th of December, 1995 to 20th of December, 1995 is contained in Annexure P/l. This is being impugned in the present petition. As indicated above, the basic challenge is that a meeting called for expres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3418
Tej Shankar, J.1. An occurrence took place on 5-6-1984 at about 3.35 p.m. inside the compound of tahsil Seondha, district Datia, P.W. 2, Radheshyam, Clerk-cum-Cashier of Punjab National Bank, Seondha and Ramprakash Shukla, P.W. 3, the then Chowkidar of the said Bank were going after taking money from the treasury in an attache. As soon as they reached the aforesaid place three persons met them. One of them sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of P.W. 3, Ramprakash Shukla, who was driving the cycle and Radheshyam was sitting on the carrier. As a result of sprinkling of chilli powder both of them fell down from the cycle. One of the Badmashes attacked Radheshyam Gupta with a danda and the third by his katta. The attache containing money was snatched. Gupta was threatened to be killed with katta and Badmashes snatched the attache and escaped. After the occurrence Ramprakash Shukla, P.W. 3, was directed by Shri Gupta to inform the Manager of the Bank and hence he went there. O.P. Sharma was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(5)MPHT76; 2002(4)MPLJ196
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. These four writ petitions pertain to validity of selection of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, made by Janpad Panchayat, Rajnagar in the year 1998.2. The case has chequered history. The Collector, Chhatarpur as per order P-4 dated 31-5-1999, quashed the entire selection procedure. The order was affirmed in revision by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar as per order P-5 passed on April 18, 2000. Second revision was entertained by the State Minister, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, which was allowed as per order P-1 passed on November 1/10th, 2000. The said order P-1 was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 2570/2001. The order P-1 passed by the State Minister was stayed by this Court in W.P. 3093/2001 and ultimately it was set aside on 18-8-2000 and this Court remanded the matter to the State Minister to hear all the interested parties then to decide revision and also to examine the question whether the second revision was maintainable before him The State M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2006]143STC316(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Petitioner is assailing show cause notices P/6 and P/7 issued in December, 2001 and also communication P/10 dated February 2, 2002. As per notices P/6 and P/7 it was proposed to initiate proceedings under Section 28/29 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Petitioner was required to submit the objection within 10 days. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Bajaj Sevashram, Indore v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, M.P., decided by the Board of Revenue on August 22, 2000 based on the Supreme Court decision. Communication P/10 indicates that there is proposal to initiate proceedings under Section 28/29. It has been observed that the decision in Bajaj Sevashramam has attained finality, as such on the basis of the said decision, proceedings under Section 28/29 can be initiated. A decision has been taken to initiate action under Section 29(1) of the Act after the year 1985-86.2. In W.P. No. 1813 of 2002 petitioner is praying for the similar relief.3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978MP46; 1978MPLJ156
Singh, J.1. Two principal questions arise for decision in this petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution: (1) Whether the President of a Municipal Council constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, continues in office after the Council stands dissolved by efflux of tune; and (2) whether the Government is bound to hold elections within a reasonable time from the date of dissolution of a Council.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that elections to the Municipal Council, Umaria, were held in May 1969. The petitioner, Mukutdhari Sharma, was elected as President to the Council on 22nd May 1969. The term of the President expired after two years on 21st May 1971; but as no election to fill up the vacancy was held, the petitioner continued as President. Four years, which is the normal term of a Council, expired on 21st May 1973. By a notification published in the Gazette dated 19th Sept. 1973, the term of the Council was extended from 21st May 1973 to 22nd Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1966MP110
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 154, 156 and 156, all of 1965.2. By these four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution Messrs. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company, a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bidies, questions the validity of tenders submitted by the respondent Messrs. Vrajlal Muljibhai and Company, Bilaspur, for the purchase of tendu leaves collected by Government or by its officers or agents in four units of certain ranges of North Bilaspur Forest Division, and seeks a direction restraining the respondents from acting in any manner on those tenders. The petitioner also prays for the issue of a direction commanding the opponents to entertain and consider the lenders it had submitted for the purchase of tendu leaves from the same units for which the aforesaid respondent had given its tenders.3. The matter arises thus. In 1964, the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniya...
Tag this Judgment!