Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Keshri Steels And Anr. vs M.P. Electricity Board And Ors. on 6 January, 1998

Gulabdas Namdeo vs Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. And Ors. on 24 April, 2003

In Keshri Steels and Anr. v. M.P. Electricity Board and Ors., 1998 (2) MPLJ 535, it has been held that payment of arrears of electricity charges of M.P. Electricity Board for energy consumed by petitioner company, such a claim is neither loan nor an advance granted within the meaning of Section 22 of SICA. This Court held that Bar created by Section 22 of SICA is not attracted to such charges as it is not a case of the loan granted to the industrial company payable as per the agreement entered into between the parties. It was held that petitioners have no right to contend that even such amount cannot be recovered on the ground that petitioner is sick industrial unit.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs General Steel Fabrication on 24 February, 2025

8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Priya Grih Udyog on 24 February, 2025

8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Fiza Toys on 24 February, 2025

8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Gudiya Enterprises on 24 February, 2025

8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Malwa Enterprises on 24 February, 2025

8. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, has submitted that the issue involved in the case in hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 (M/s.Anupam Steels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and W.P. No.276 of 2015 (M/s. Shaifali Garments Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 20.04.2017, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530 of 2017 and W.A. No.537 of 2017 respectively, vide common order dated 23.11.2017, and its Review Petition filed by the State, R.P. No.98 of 2018 has already been rejected by this Court, and even the SLP No.28778 - 28779 of 2018 arising out of the Division Bench's order has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and thus, it is submitted that the same treatment be accorded to the petitioner as has been accorded by this Court to the petitioners in W.P. No.8734 of 2015 and W.P. No.276 of 2015 vide order dated 20.04.2017.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M.P.Electricity Board & Ors. vs M/S Alpine Biotech Ltd. on 17 October, 2016

2. Learned Writ Court relying on the decision in the case of Keshri Steels and another vs. M. P. Electricity Board and others reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ 535 allowed the writ petition and directed that no recovery proceedings would be continued against the respondent - company, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Naib Tehsildar that proceedings are still pending under the Act of 2 1985 but granted liberty to the appellants to place such material before the appellant No.2 - Naib Tehsildar, which show that the proceedings in the matter of the respondent has already been concluded and as such, provisions of the Act are no more attracted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document
1