Madhya Pradesh Court December 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Mathuro Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MPHT499
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging her retirement on the basis of 60 years of age.2. The petitioner was appointed as Safai Kamgar in Municipal Council, Sabalgarh in the year 1965. After attaining the age of 60 years, she has been retired vide order dated 9-2-1999, passed by Municipal Council, Sabalgarh with effect from 28-2-1999. The main ground of challenge in this writ petition is that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years because the State Government has given benefit of IV Class employees to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. Similar benefit has been given to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Municipal Service (Executive). Subsequently, the State Government has also given the benefit of age of retirement of 62 years to IV Class employees of Municipalities but that benefit has been given from the date of issuance of notification, i.e., 27-9-2...
Saurabh Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT240
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 20-2-2008 passed by learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P. No. 14220/2007 (S).2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was born in District Rewa in the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1986 and did his schooling in schools situated in District Rewa upto Class IX, but he studied in Class X in Durg and passed Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur in 2002. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 25-3-2006 for recruitment to the post of Constable, the appellant applied and was selected, but by a communication dated 22-9-2007 of the respondents he was informed that his name has been deleted from the select list as he had not obtained educational qualification from any school situated in Madhya Pradesh. Aggrie...
Bhanwarlal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)MPHT119
ORDERViney Mittal, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the case is being taken up for final disposal.2. The land of the petitioner was acquired and an award dated March 27, 2003 (Annexure P-1) was rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner claims that he came to know of the aforesaid award on April 23,2004, and as such, immediately on coming to know of the said award, and having a feeling that the compensation amount had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer on lower side, he sent a petition to the Acquisition Authority for enhancement of the compensation. The aforesaid petition was labelled as a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of the said notice has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition.3. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 4610/2008. The grievance raised was that although the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was pending before t...
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Vs. Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT235
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. The writ petitions have been preferred by the employer The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for brevity). In W.P. No. 15288/05 (S) the respondent-employee approached under the provisions of the MPIR Act, 1960 before the Labour Court and other cases of concerned workmen were referred for adjudication under ID Act to the Labour Court. In W.P. No. 15288/05 (S) reinstatement has been ordered by the Labour Court with 25% back wages. In W.P. No. 7987/07 (S) and W.P. No. 15092/07 (S) also reinstatement has been ordered with 25% back wages whereas in W.P. No. 15091/07 (S) and W.P. No. 15093/07 (S) the reinstatement is ordered without back wages.2. The short facts indicate that the respondent-workmen/employees have rendered services for a period of 2 1/2 years. Their services were dispensed with. Initially the action was assailed by way of filing writ petitions before this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed. There...
Dr. Pratap Singh Hardia Vs. Sanjay Chawrekar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2009MP73
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 11th August 2008 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Indore in Misc. Judicial Case No. 13/03 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that there was some agreement between the petitioner and the respondents, in execution of which certain dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity the 'Arbitration Act'). The Arbitrator passed award on 11-4-2003.3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 11-4-2003. The said application was registered as Arbitration Ca...
Arun Kumar Patra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT82
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-12-1997 passed by V Additional Sessions and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 152/96 convicting appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant.2. In brief the case of prosecution is that 10-9-1995 appellant was serving on the post of Electrical Foreman at Nainpur Railway Station and complainant Farid Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') was serving in South Eastern Railway, Howbagh Railway Station. Complainant was trying to get him transferred from Howbagh to Nainpur and in this regard he contacted appellant. However, appellant was making demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- to forward ...
Natthu Khan Vs. Komal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT265
ORDER1. The petition is admitted and with the consent of the parties, it is finally heard.2. The petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 25-1-2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class I, Bina in Civil Suit No. 197-A/2006 is before this Court with a submission that the order passed by the Court below shows absolute non-application of mind because on one side it is requiring the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty on the document treating it to be an agreement and at the same time it is holding that the document is a complete sale.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the document is an agreement for sale with delivery of possession then the question of stamp duty only would arise but if its held that the document is a complete sale and is unregistered then the document would be inadmissible except for collateral purpose. It is submitted that the order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.4. Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for...
Cement Corporation Employees Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ347MP
Viney Mittal, J.1. The petitioner before this Court is the Cement Corporation Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as petitioner-union), a registered workers union of Cement Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent-company). It has assailed an order dated July 14, 2008, Annexure P-16, passed by the Central Government, vide which, the permission under Section 25-O of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) has been granted to close down its seven units/undertakings, including a Cement Factory at Nayagaon in State of Madhya Pradesh. The notice of closure dated July 28, 2008, Annexure P-17 issued by the respondent-company, as a consequence thereof, has also been challenged. Facts.2. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., respondent-company is a public sector company under the administrative control of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India. The company was incorporated, primarily, for production of cement and sale thereo...
Kamlesh Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MPHT372
ORDER1. Heard.This petition is directed against the order dated 15-10-2008 (Annexure P-l) by which the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior refused to grant stay against an order dated 6-10-2008 (Annexure P-2) by which the Collector, Ashoknagar placed the petitioner under suspension, with a further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance and his headquarter shall be at the office of Janpad Panchayat, Chanderi.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector, Ashok Nagar by the impugned order has not only suspended the petitioner but also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance, meaning thereby the petitioner, who was also a Panchayat Karmi, was suspended even from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The Collector, who was an Appointing Authority under Section 69 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was not empowered to suspend the petitioner from the post of Panchay...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›