.....none is appearing for the applicant”2. we have perused the record, heard learned counsel for the state and are deciding the matter based on the facts as are narrated after filing of this petition.3. applicant herein m/s shanti construction c. satpura colony itarsi, district-hoshangabad was granted a contract for construction of ralla distributory of kolar project earth work in 0 to 9.60 kms. a contract was awarded for a period of 12 months. the work order was issued and the period stipulated in the work order for completion of the contract is upto 3.2.1986 but on various grounds, the contract was extended upto 30.6.1986. after the work was completed, payment was made to the applicant.4. applicant being aggrieved with the aforesaid, claimed the payment of `8,16,397/- before the arbitration tribunal and the claim of the applicant having been rejected, this revision petition is filed under section 19 of the m.p. madhyastham adhikaran adhiniyam, 1983.5. a perusal of the award passed by the tribunal consisting of a three member bench, headed by the chairman, goes to show that the claim was made by the applicant under 10 heads, including interest and all the claims have been.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no.6 : shri prashant singh, advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- order (02/07/2013) the facts and issues involved in both these petitions being identical, they are heard and decided concomitantly. the petitioners, who are all students prosecuting a bachelors degree course in veterinary science, have 2 w.p no.5978/2013 & 6388/2013 filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to permit them to participate in the selection process initiated by the respondents for making appointments on the post of veterinary assistant surgeon by issuing an advertisement dated 8.10.2012 as well as the subsequent clarification to the said advertisement issued on 10.12.2012 and 31.12.2012. the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that their forms/applications for participating in the selection process have been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they do not possess the requisite necessary educational qualification prescribed by law.2. the brief facts, necessary for adjudicating the issue raised by the petitioners in both the petitions, are that the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of veterinary.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so that they are not forced to approach this court for their rights. not the grievance of the applicants before this court are that inspite of the fact that the single bench in the case of satish shrivastava (supra) vide annexure c/1 and the division bench in the case of raghvendra nath shukla (supra) has clearly held that the benefit should be given to each of the members of the labour judiciary, to the applicants the said benefit is not being granted w.e.f. 1.7.1996.7. after the aforesaid directions were issued applicants herein particularly applicant sachin kumar vijayvargiya represented to the state government and sought for grant of benefit in accordance to the directions issued by the single benches and division benches of this court in the 7 cases as referred to herein above. the state government, it may be taken note of, passed an order annexure c/4 on 4 th september 2010 granting the benefit to shri satish shrivastava who had approached this court but in the last para of this order, it was indicated that this order will be applicable only to shri satish shrivastava and will not be applicable to others. when this was done, the present applicant shri sachin kumar.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of a matrimonial dispute. in b.s.joshi versus state of haryana – (2003) 4 scc 675.it has been held by the apex court that the non-compoundability of section 498-a of the ipc is not going to come in the way of court in exercising the power under section 482 of cr.p.c.in order to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes as held by the apex court. however, it is not a matrimonial dispute. in the instant case, the allegation made against applicant no.2 is that he abducted minot prosecutrix and committed rape on her. considering the gravity of the offence alleged against applicant no.2, i do not find it a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the cr.p.c., therefore, no case for quashment of fir is made out against applicant no.2. however, it is expected from the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial as far as possible within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. consequently, i.a.no.13954/2013 is dismissed, as a consequence thereof this petition is also dismissed. (g.s.solanki) judge pb
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....following terms – learned govt. advocate appearing for the respondent/state was directed to seek instructions. on instructions, he submits that in fact the intention of the authority is to comply with the order passed by this court though the order-dated 22.6.2012 was not happily worded. it is submitted that the petitioner would be supplied the documents as ordered by the deputy registrar, co-operative societies, bhopal in his previous orders dated 19.1.2011 and 14.2.2011 before proceeding in the matter. grievance of the petitioner is that the order was not adhered to in letter and spirit. be that as it may. since final order has not been passed by deputy registrar, co-operative societies, bhopal, which was subjected to challenge in a writ petition 21248/2012 and the petitioner has been relegated to seek ::4. :: conc. no.1733/2012. the remedy under section 78 of the act, this court does not perceive any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent and the orders passed in w.p.no.7666/2012 and w.p.no.9326/2012. the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to raise all grounds available to him under law in a proceeding under section 78 of the m.p.co-operative.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of compounder and pharmacist to the post of store keeper. the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 24.2.2011 in the following terms.“in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before the competent authority along with circular dated 23.1.1980 and the copy of the order passed today.upon submission of the representation after giving opportunity of hearing the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two months positively without fail and it is found that the petitioner is entitled for promotion then necessary order shall also be passed with the stipulated period. it is also made clear that the claim of the petitioner be considered from the date when the petition was filed.” on being noticed respondents have filed their response wherein it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the -2- recruitment rules madhya pradesh public health and family welfare department non-ministerial (related to the directorate of health services) class iii service recruitment rules, 1989 whereof he was found not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so that they are not forced to approach this court for their rights. not the grievance of the applicants before this court are that inspite of the fact that the single bench in the case of satish shrivastava (supra) vide annexure c/1 and the division bench in the case of raghvendra nath shukla (supra) has clearly held that the benefit should be given to each of the members of the labour judiciary, to the applicants the said benefit is not being granted w.e.f. 1.7.1996.7. after the aforesaid directions were issued applicants herein particularly applicant sachin kumar vijayvargiya represented to the state government and sought for grant of benefit in accordance to the directions issued by the single benches and division benches of this court in the 7 cases as referred to herein above. the state government, it may be taken note of, passed an order annexure c/4 on 4 th september 2010 granting the benefit to shri satish shrivastava who had approached this court but in the last para of this order, it was indicated that this order will be applicable only to shri satish shrivastava and will not be applicable to others. when this was done, the present applicant shri sachin kumar.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....plan for construction of p.c.c.road and issuance of work order, remaining 95 meters of work could not be completed. on the aforesaid ground, this petition has been filed. the facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded works contract for construction of p.c.c.road in ward no.7 within a period of 120 days, as per annexure p-2 dated 05.05.2008. it appears that there was some dispute in respect of issuance of lay-out plan but from the perusal of para 5 of the return it appears that the respondent no.2 has specifically stated that on 08.10.2008 the layout plan was sought to be served on the petitioner but he had refused to receive the layout plan. apart from this, the work order was issued for the entire construction work of 150 meters of the road. it appears that in fact there are serious disputes between the parties and the present disputes cannot be decided by this court in writ jurisdiction. accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum. no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (subhash kakade) acting chief justice judge psm
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so that they are not forced to approach this court for their rights. not the grievance of the applicants before this court are that inspite of the fact that the single bench in the case of satish shrivastava (supra) vide annexure c/1 and the division bench in the case of raghvendra nath shukla (supra) has clearly held that the benefit should be given to each of the members of the labour judiciary, to the applicants the said benefit is not being granted w.e.f. 1.7.1996.7. after the aforesaid directions were issued applicants herein particularly applicant sachin kumar vijayvargiya represented to the state government and sought for grant of benefit in accordance to the directions issued by the single benches and division benches of this court in the 7 cases as referred to herein above. the state government, it may be taken note of, passed an order annexure c/4 on 4 th september 2010 granting the benefit to shri satish shrivastava who had approached this court but in the last para of this order, it was indicated that this order will be applicable only to shri satish shrivastava and will not be applicable to others. when this was done, the present applicant shri sachin kumar.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....decree of divorce before the second additional principal judge, family court, jabalpur which is pending for its adjudication. an application under section 24 of the act was filed by the present petitioner praying to allow interim maintenance as well as litigation charges. the said application has been dismissed by the second additional principal judge of the family court, jabalpur on 30.4.2013 and this order has been assailed by the wife in this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. on bare perusal of the impugned order this court finds that without assigning the cogent reasons the application has been straightway rejected. on bare perusal of section 24 of the said act, the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses can be claimed either by the wife or the husband in any proceeding under the said act by demonstrating that he or she has no source of income. the learned family court has not at all taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has rejected the application. in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand. the same is hereby set aside and the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT