Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP98; 2002(2)MPHT10
ORDERDipak Misra, J. 1. The pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said issue being cardinal and dominant, I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant case.2. The facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the othe...
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 : III(2004)BC41; 2002(5)MPHT187; 2002(4)MPLJ521
Arun Mishra, J.1. Petitioners are challenging the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in T.A. No. 917/98 decided on 13th July, 2000 as per Annexure P/4.2. An application was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment which application was dismissed by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 15th October, 2001 as per order Annexure P/5.3. It is the consistent view taken by this Court that in the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, interference has not to be ordinarily made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, This Court has consistently followed the decision of Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 569, in which it was emphasized by their Lordships that the Recovery Act has been enacted with a view to provide special procedure for recovery of debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions, There is a hirarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)MPHT551
S.P. Khare, J.1. Appellant Vikram has been convicted under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended in 2001), hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act', for having been found in possession of 200 grams of opium on 3-11-2000 at 11.00 P.M. near Village Bhanwra Mugli and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.2. During the course of hearing of this appeal the only point which has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with and, therefore, the conviction should be set aside. According to CD. Tiwari (P.W. 4), Station Officer of Ashta Police Station he was talking to Sobhal Singh (P.W. 5) and Gopal Singh (P.W. 10) on his patrolling duty and then he saw a person coming from the opposite direction and on seeing the police vehicle he retraced his steps and started running towards the side from which he was coming. He was caught hold of. He was accused Vikr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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
Reported in : AIR2003MP261
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, M/s. Lucky Forwarding Agency, has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressai Forum, Rewa (in short 'the District Forum') vide Annexure-P-7 and the affirmation thereof by the State Consumer Disputes Redressai Commission (for brevity 'the State Commission'), in appeal No. 903/96 vide Annexure-P-9 and the confirmation thereof by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission') vide Annexure-P-11.2. The facts, sans unnecessary details, essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in Commission Agency at Lucknow and has no branch Office anywhere in the country. All the partners of the petitioner -Firm reside at Lucknow and none of them voluntarily resides or carries on business at Rewa. As a commission agent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003MP223; 2003(3)MPLJ264
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner, elected President of Municipal Council Shivpuri has filed this petition questioning the tenability and validity of the order Annexure P-1 dated 13-9-2002 passed by the State Govt. in exercise of its powers under Section 41A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961 removing him from office.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as President of the Council on 27-12-1999, he took charge of the Office on 4-1-2000 and since then had been discharging the duties when by the impugned order he has been removed.3. It is averred by the petitioner that prior to him one Smt. Krishna Gupta was President of the Municipal Council, during her tenure a resolution was passed by the Council for the purpose of laying down roads with asphalt, the Council sanctioned the bid invited tender's and contract was given for construction of asphalt, road on hotmix method. It is averred in the petition that for the said purpose a sum of Rs. 24 lacs was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(3)MPHT301; 2003(3)MPLJ428; 2009AIRSCW604
Dipak Misra, J. 1. These two appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being interlinked and interconnected and having arisen out of a singular award dated 5-4-1994 passed in M.J.C. No. 64/85 by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. In First Appeal No. 212/1994 the claimant-land owner is the appellant who is assailing the award passed by the Reference Court and in the other appeal the State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the defensibility of the same.2. The facts which are essential to be stated for the disposal of both the appeals are that the State Government issued a notification under Sections 4 and 17(1) of the Act on 26-9-75 for acquisition of land admeasuring 6.56 acres of land forming a part of Khasra Nos. 49, 52/1, 52/2, 84 and 88/2 situated in Village Rasulia, District Hoshangabad. The land of the claimant admeasur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT1; 2003(3)MPLJ554
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1.Expressing the view that the issues involved arc of immense significance and placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 MP 116 and Balkrishan Das v. Harnarayan, 1979 MPLJ 644, wherein it has been held that the existence of two earlier conflicting decisions on the same point is not a 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 for carrying out ...
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!