SANJAY YADAV
R. P. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. Difference of opinion as to whether an order dated 18.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 14740/2008 : Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P. and others and the batch of writ petitions, viz. W.P. No. 1796/2007, 3437/2007, 3804/2007, 3822/2007, 8611/2008 and 14738/2008 could be reviewed for the reasons mentioned in Review Petitions : R.P. No. 124/2012 and R.P. 306/2012, has paved the path for laying the matter before this Court for an opinion as to "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitions are to be allowed or dismissed".
2. The writ petition called in question the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11a(i) in the second schedule appended to the Court Fee Act, 1870, stipulating -
"(ii) In article 11, for clause (a) and entry relating thereto, the following clause and entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely :
(a) when presented to the High Court-
The grounds for challenges were -
(i) discrimination : as only the claimant is required to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation whereas the Insurance Company and the owner file an appeal or fixe
Basant Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others : (2001) 7 SCC 201 (Para 5)
Chandra Kanta Vs. Sheikh Habib : (1975) 3 SCR 933 (Para 16)
E.V. Balakrishan Vs. Mahalkshmi Anmal and Anothers
Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others : (2013) 8 SCC 320 (Para 17)
M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674 (Para 16)
M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary
Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Cinta Devi and Others : AIR 1996 SC 1560 (Para 5)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.