Madhya Pradesh Court September 2010 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.
Randeep Singh. Vs. the Railway Protection Force.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks quashment of initiation of disciplinary proceedings emanating with the issuance of charge sheet dated 10.1.2010 whereby the petitioner is charged of the following charges:-आरोपः- आरक्षक रणदीप सिंह को, सवारी गाडी क्रमांक 2627/2628 कर्नटक एक्सप्रेस में इटारसी-बिन के मध्य आर्मस्-अम्यूनीशन से अन्य ê...
Jal Tarang Agencies Kpraivate. Vs. Smt.Sarla Agrawal, and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for appellants. Shri Pranay Verma, Counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. Shri Devendra Shukla, Counsel for respondent No.9. Shri S.A.Wakil, Counsel for respondent No.10. Shri Ajay Ojha, Counsel for respondents No.11,12 & 13. Shri Raghvendra Shukla, Counsel for respondents No.14 and 15. I.A.No.10846/09 for correction in the order dated 17.4.2009 Learned counsel for appellants and respondents No.1 to 5 submitted that there is an error in the operative part of order dated 17.4.2009 by which this Court directed thus:- "Both the appeals are arising out of a judgment and decree dated 18.3.2003 in Civil suit No.4A/08 by 5th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rewa by which the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to 5 was decreed partially. The defendants No. 1 and 2 have preferred F.A.258/08 while the plaintiffs have preferred F.A.321/08. In F.A.258/08, the appellants have filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 Read with Sec. 151 CPC for appointment of a...
Bhupendra Singh @ Gudda Singh, and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol has passed the impugned judgment dated 14.9.2001 in S.T.No. 7/2001 by which appellant Bhupendra Singh @ Gudda Singh (A/1) has been convicted under Section 302, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b)(b) and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months; and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for two years two years and fine of Rs. 200/- - 200/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2-2 months respectively and appellant no. 2 Nand Kishore @ Bulloo (A/2) has been convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months; and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, rigorous...
Santosh Kumar Ahirwar. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The petitioner while working as Panchayat Karmi (Secretary), Gram Panchayat Padroth, Janpad Panchayat Sohawal was subjected to a show cause notice dated 11.9.2001 whereby the petitioner was informed of certain recovery to be effected of certain money towards old age pension and social security scheme. The petitioner vide his reply dated 18.10.2001 refuted the allegations put-forth vide the said show cause notice. Thereafter by order dated 29.10.2001 passed by Collector, district Satna the petitioner was divested to his power as Secretary under Section 69 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.2. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal but was unsuccessful as the appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 28.11.2006. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred this petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 29.10.2001 and the consequential order dated 28.11.2006 passed in appeal on a sole ground that the petitioner has been inflicted wi...
ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union. Vs. the Director, Steel Authority of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. On failure of conciliation,the case of 3404 workmen was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short "CGIT"). Following three questions were referred vide notification dated 27.01.93:-"I. Whether the action of the Mines Manager, Koteshwar Lime Stone Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd.in terminating services of 3404 (3380+24-as per list attached) mine workers in March, 1996 who ceased to be contract labour after prohibition of employment of contract labour in Lime Stone Mine vide Notification No.S.O.707 dated 17.3.93 was legal, fair and justified If not, what relief the concerned workmen or heirs in case of deceased worker are entitled to II. Whether the action of the Mines Manager, Koteshwar Lime Stone Mines of Steel Authority of India Ltd. in denying terminal benefit of gratuity,retrenchment, compensation and exgratia applicable to VRS seeking employees is fair and justified. If not, to what relief these workers/heirs are entitled to III. Wh...
Dr. Abhay Kumar. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Petitioner aggrieved of his supersession for the post of Joint Director in the Department of Information and Publicity, whereon vide order dated 02-04-1995 his juniors were promoted.2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Public Relation Officer vide appointment letter dated 02-03-1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Public Relation Officer on 12-08-1995. The promotion from the post of Deputy Public Relation Officer is to that of Joint Director. W herefor, a Departmental Promot6ion Committee was convened on 30-03-1995 to fill in six posts of Joint Director. The relevant rules which govern promotions are the Madhya Pradesh Civil (Information and Publicity) Service Recruitment Rules, 1966 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. W herein Rule 6 provides for appointment either by direct recruitment, by promotion or by transfer. Schedule I appended with the Rule lays down that the appointment for the post of Joint Director is by 100% promotion...
Ujjwal Kesari. Vs. Shri Krishna Gupta and Others.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Shri Neeraj Ashar, Counsel for respondent/election petitioner. This petition is directed against an order dated 25.2.2010 by III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shahdol in Case No.1/2010 by which the trial Court rejected the application under Order 9 rule 7 CPC.2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was implied refusal of the summons on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner ought to have moved an application within a period of 30 days from the date when the exparte order was passed. It is further submitted by the petitioner that no summons was served on the petitioner and on getting knowledge of the exparte order, he moved an application on 25.2.2010, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the application.3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/election petitioner supported the order who submitted that on 8.2.2010, process-server offered summons to the p...
Neelkamal, S/O Jageshwar Mistri, and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panna has passed impugned judgment dated 13.07.1995, in ST No. 85/92 by which appellants/accused persons have been convicted under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default further RI for 6 months.2. Being aggrieved, appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with other co- accused Rakhal, S/o Kartik Mistri and Neelu @ Nirmal, S/o Surendra Vishwas but both of them died during pendency of this appeal, therefore, appeal in relation to them stands abated.3. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the intervening night of 28-29/6/1992, complainant Gopal Singh(PW-3) along with his wife Awadhrani (PW-15), daughter Sumitra bai (PW-16), son Guman Singh (PW-4) and his son-in-law Ganesh Singh(PW-14) were sleeping in courtyard of his house in village, Vikrampur.4. At about 2' O' clock in night more than five miscreants entered ...
Smt.Mariyam. Vs. Reg.Provident Fund Commissioner.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to respondents to finalize the case of pension and pay the arrears of pension w.e.f. 1996 to 2000 and thereafter. The husband of the petitioner was in employment of M.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as Corporation) and retired from the service w.e.f. 31.12.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder is applicable to the Corporation. It is contended that, as per scheme the contributory fund from the share of petitioner's husband was deducted and was deposited with respondent No. 1. It is urged, after death of her husband, petitioner approached the authorities of respondent No. 2, the Corporation, for grant of family pension by submitting an application on 14.4.2004 and despite of repeated efforts made by the petitioner, the respondents did not ext...
Rajesh Kumar Dubey. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Court: Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Shri B. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction for respondents to pay entire retiral dues.2. The facts as gathered from the submission and the pleadings are that the petitioner while in service as District Commandant Home Guard was served a charge sheet on 25-07-2006. The legality whereof was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2330/07(s); wherein initially stay was granted; however, subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed on 02-12-2009.3. That during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31-03-2009. After the retirement provisional pension of the petitioner was fixed as per Rule 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 by order dated 17-04-2009 because of pendency of the departmental enquiry.4. By way of present petition the petitioner claims 90% of the gratuity, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›