Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P No.212/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.212/1999 PETITIONER : ANIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENTS : MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHINDWARA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioners : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Amit Shahni and Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocates. For the respondent no.1 : Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (30/10/2012) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution and decision taken by the Town Improvement Trust, Chhindwara on 20.12.1993 and the consequent sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos.2 to 5, Annexures P-23 to 26. It is alleged that the dispute relates to absolute sale of the open chhat (terrace) of the shopping complex by respondent no.1 Municipal Council, Chhindwara to respondent nos.2 to 5 pursuant to a resolution of the Town Improvement Trust, Chhindwar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.262/2003 J.P.Gupta and others -versus Eveready Industries India LTD.and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. _________________________________________________________________ Smt.Shobha Menon, senior counsel with Shri Syed Shaukat Ali, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Brian Dsilva, senior counsel with Shri V. Bhide, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (27.11.2012) 1 : This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 28th of June, 2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Bhopal whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against the award passed by the Labour Court has been allowed and the award has been set aside on the ground that dispute was raised by the petitioners with respect to the validity of an agreement executed by the employees union with the employer with respect to the enhancement of the retrenchment compensation and it was further contended that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGHCOURTOFMADHYAPRADEESHJABALPUR (WritAppealNo.1407/2010) UdayKumarNigam Vs. SatishKumarSaneandothers (WritAppealNo.1346/2010) M.P.HousingBoardandanother Vs. SatishKumarSaneandothers PRESENT: HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICESHRIS.A.BOBDE HONBLESHRIJUSTICESANJAYYADAV CounselforAppellant ShriHemantShrivastava,AdvocateinWA No. 1407/2010 and Shri Ashish Shroti, AdvocateinW.A.No.1346/2010 CounselforrespondentNo.1 Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate in bothcases CounselforrespondentNo.2 ShriAshishShroti,AdvocateinW.A. No.1407/2010 ORDER (22/2/2013) PERSANJAYYADAV,J. ThesetwoIntraCourtAppealsunderSection2(1)ofthe Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko 2 W.A. No.1407/10 & 1346/10 Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, since arises of an order dated 12.10.2010passedinW.P.7804/2008(S)areanalogouslyheard anddecidedbythiscommonorder.2. Questionwhicharisesforconsiderationisastowhethera warning, on the basis of a finding in a departmental enquiry wouldtantamounttoapunishmentunderMad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.9343/2010 M/s Samdariya Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prem Francis, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (18.02.2013) The petitioner, a Builder and Developer, has approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising dispute with respect to the claim made by the respondent vide letter dated 15.01.2009 for payment of ground rent and also the rejection of representation made by the petitioner against the said letter vide order dated 17.03.2009. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGHCOURTOFMADHYAPRADEESHJABALPUR (WritAppealNo.1407/2010) UdayKumarNigam Vs. SatishKumarSaneandothers (WritAppealNo.1346/2010) M.P.HousingBoardandanother Vs. SatishKumarSaneandothers PRESENT: HON'BLETHECHIEFJUSTICESHRIS.A.BOBDE HONBLESHRIJUSTICESANJAYYADAV CounselforAppellant ShriHemantShrivastava,AdvocateinWA No. 1407/2010 and Shri Ashish Shroti, AdvocateinW.A.No.1346/2010 CounselforrespondentNo.1 Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate in bothcases CounselforrespondentNo.2 ShriAshishShroti,AdvocateinW.A. No.1407/2010 ORDER (22/2/2013) PERSANJAYYADAV,J. ThesetwoIntraCourtAppealsunderSection2(1)ofthe Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko 2 W.A. No.1407/10 & 1346/10 Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, since arises of an order dated 12.10.2010passedinW.P.7804/2008(S)areanalogouslyheard anddecidedbythiscommonorder.2. Questionwhicharisesforconsiderationisastowhethera warning, on the basis of a finding in a departmental enquiry wouldtantamounttoapunishmentunderMad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.986/2012 01.03.2013 Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A. No.14613/2012, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient reason has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the review petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.14613/2012 is allowed. Heard. This petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.287/1996. This Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2012 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the plea with regard to validity of quit notice was neither raised before the Trial Court not before the Lower Appellate Court. Since the plea of validity of quit notice is mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.A. No.290/2012 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri S. A. Bobde, CJ & Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents State. Shri Shashank Shekar, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 _________________________________________________ As per : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri S. A. Bobde ORDER (832013) The appellant Municipal Corporation of Bhopal has come in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.2.2012 by which the learned Single 2 Judge has held that the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh did not have the power to remand the matter back to the Municipal Corporation. Having held so, however, the learned Single Judge instead of directing the State Government to decide the matter itself has proceeded to consider the merits of the matter pertain to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :11986. Of 2012 Dr. Deochand Bhura V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Deochand Bhura, present in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.3.2013 Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division exercising powers of an Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 56 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of demanding stamp duty on an instrument which was impounded by the competent authority in a proceeding that was held before it under the M.P. Land Revenue Code for mutation.2. Facts in brief w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Second Appeal No.834 / 2012 ( Gopikishan ..Vs.Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khandwa ) 12-03-2013 Heard Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant on the question of admission. The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-5-2012 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Khandwa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.26-A/2009, confirming and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-03-2011, passed by the Second Civil Judge Class II, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No.16-A/2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to record a proper finding as to whether the accommodation, in question, was required for the bona fide need of the respondent/Krishi Upaj Mandi, Khandwa, which is necessary for evicting a tenant under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').The learned counsel for the appellant further submit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1474/2007 Nazeem VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 12th day of March, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 30.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal appeal No.67/2007, whereby it was found that the applicant was above 18 years of age and therefore, he could not be said to be a juvenile at the time of the incident and hence, the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal in an unregistered MJ.Nazeem Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. was confirmed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, a case was registered a...
Tag this Judgment!