.....of the provisions of the act and the rules are all grounds that can be taken up by the petitioner by filing an election dispute under section 64 of the m.p.co-operative societies act, 1960. 3 w.p.no.9617/2012 arun kumar soni versus state of m.p.& ors.in the circumstances, on account of the fact that the final list of contestants and the allotment of symbols is already over and the election is due to be held on 6.7.2012 as well as the ground of availability of the remedy of filing election petition, after declaration of result, under section 64 of the act to the petitioner, i do not find any ground to entertain the present petition at this stage. the petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up all the aforesaid issues, in case so advised, by raising a dispute, if aggrieved, after the elections are over in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. with the aforesaid observation/liberty the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of. c.c as per rules. ( r.s.jha ) judge mms/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....is granted to the respondent to withdraw the amount, security may be obtained from the respondent before release of the amount. considering the fact that the aforesaid amount relates to the contract of construction work which the respondent had carried out and the trial court after considering the facts of the case found that the construction was carried out by the respondent for which payment was not made and decree for rs.74,97,800/- along with 9% of interest was passed in favour of the respondent, out of which 50% amount has been deposited before the trial court. considering the peculiar facts of the case, we allow this 2....f.a.no.1092 o”4. 7.2012 application on the following terms :- 1. respondent to file an undertaking before the trial court that in case of reversal of the decree or any direction/order is passed by this court, the respondent shall deposit the amount or shall comply with the directions within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.”2. on furnishing such an undertaking, the trial court shall release the amount, deposited by the appellant before the trial court, in favour of the respondent. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (vimla jain).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....imposition of the entry tax on such plant, machinery and tools are liable to be quashed. according this petition is 2....w.p.no.16148 of 2007 sagar mines pvt.ltd.state of m.p.& others.4.7.2012 allowed. orders annexure p-3 and p-5 imposing entry tax on such plant, machinery and tolls which were brought within the local area, before commencement of the business are hereby quashed. if any amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards the entry tax, on these items.petitioner shall be entitled to get refund of the aforesaid amount within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. no order as to costs. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (vimla jain) judge judge vj
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT1....mcc.no.684 o”4. 7.2012 shri a.k.tiwari, counsel for the applicant. this application is filed for restoration of m.a.1938/2006 which was dismissed because of the non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.5.2006. for the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit, we find it appropriate to allow this application by condoning the delay in filing this application on following terms:- 1. applicant to deposit rs.500/- in the high court bar association for library fund within a period of one week from today.”2. on furnishing the receipt there on in the office, office to restore the appeal and list the same before the appropriate bench. (krishn kumar lahoti) (vimla jain) judge judge vj
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....are not registering a case against the respondents no.7 and 8 and in such circumstances it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the authorities. in the circumstances, in view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the superintendent of police, satna, to look into the matter and take action against the respondents no.7 and 8 expeditiously in accordance with law. to enable the aforesaid authority to do so a copy of the order passed by this court today and a copy of the petition be served upon the concerned authority by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of obtaining the same. with the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) mct judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....rendered in the case of sahib ram versus state of haryana and others 1995 supp. (1) scc 1.with regard to the recovery to be effected and also the fact with regard to employee's entitlement to count his services rendered in the land army after he was absorbed in the tribal department. challenging the aforesaid order, petitioner has filed a writ appeal being w.a.no.886/2010 and the same was decided by the division bench vide order dated 21.4.2011 and the division bench of this court found that the recovery of the amount already granted is contrary to the law laid down in the case of sahib ram (supra) and, thereafter, taking note of the judgment rendered by this court in the case of state of m.p.and others versus smt. jamwanti gujral 2003 (3) mpht 6 (noc).allowed the writ appeal in part and quashed the order so far as it relates to the recovery and benefit granted. however, the respondents did not restore the benefit granted, it seems that the petitioner again filed a review petition being r.p.no.489/2011 before the division bench and in the said review petition, brought to the notice of this court two orders passed by the state government. these orders were dated 22.7.2000 and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....concerned court regarding progress of the proceedings pursuant to which a report dated 17.02.2012 has been forwarded by the court concerned to this court in which, after reporting the progress of the case and enumerating its difficulty in early disposal, the court has prayed for one year time to decide the case. in view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondents as well as the court concerned to conclude the trial of the pending case as early as possible preferrably within a period of one year. with the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge msp
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the division bench of this court in w.p.no.1843/2010. having gone through the material available on record and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that three employees namely one shri laxmi narayan, manohar and radheshyam i.e.the present respondent were working in the establishment of narmada valley development authority and their services were terminated. inter alia contending that termination is illegal and the same amounts to retrenchment and as the precondition stipulated under section 25(f) of industrial disputes act, has not been complied with, the same be declared as illegal. in all the three cases, reference was made to the labour court and on 18.5.2009 three awards were passed in the case of each of the workmen which was published and declared on 18.6.2009. challenging th award so far as present respondent is concerned, this writ petition has been filed by the state. in the case of similarly situated employee also similar order was passed on 18.5.2009 and the said award was challenged by the petitioner herein in w.p.no.1843/2010 and a division bench of this court on 8.3.2010 after taking note of similar contentions raised.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the petitioner. shri h. singh, learned counsel for the respondents. i.a.no.860/2012 has been filed by the petitioner for taking relevant facts on record and it is pointed out that even though in pursuance to the order passed by this court on 4.4.2012 petitioner is reinstated and permitted to join duties after order annexure r1/4 was passed on 18.4.2012 but regular salary in accordance to entitlement and pay scale prescribed is not made, instead a sum of rs.11,000/- towards advance is being paid to the petitioner. grievance of the petitioner is that once in pursuance to the order passed on 4.4.2012 he has been reinstated and discharging his duties, he is entitled to relevant pay scale on which he is working and respondents with a view to harass the petitioner are not granting the said benefits. learned counsel for the respondents prays for a week's time to seek instructions and give his say in the matter. respondents are directed to file an affidavit indicating as to how and in what manner the order passed by this court on 4.4. 2012 is being complied with and indicating the manner in which payment of salary is made to the petitioner. let an affidavit be filed on or.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTwrit petition no.21898/2011 4.7.2012 shri s.p.tiwari, advocate, for the petitioner. smt. kanak gaharwar, advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. this petition is directed against the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the armed forces tribunal, regional bench, lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioner’s transfer application no.320/2010. admittedly, against the order under challenge the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the supreme court under the provisions of armed forces tribunal act. the learned counsel for petitioner, with a liberty to pursue the remedy available under the provisions of the armed forces tribunal act, does not want to press the present petition. with the said liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. the certified copy of the orders dated 23.9.2010 and 15.9.2011, annexures p5 and p6, passed by the armed forces tribunal be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing the photo copy of the same. certified copy as per rules. (ajit singh) (sanjay yadav) judge judge ps
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT