Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Rahim Khan Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17541/20131. 10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question ...
Rajendra Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.18074/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Neeraj Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and ...
Trust Jay Dayal Shriniwas Dharamshala Th:rajkumar Gidwani Vs. Municipa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.11389 / 2012 (Trust Jai Dayal Shriniwas, Katni---Vs..Municipal Corporation, Katni & another) 31-10-2012 Shri Sourabh Shrivastava and Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to the petitioner under Section 174(1) of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 15-2-2012 asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.92557.99 towards the outstanding property tax and the subsequent demand notice and proposed attachment issued by the authorities under Sections 175/178 of the Act dated 11-7-2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a public charitable trust and is managing a Dharmashala situated in Katni which is exempted from levy of property tax under Section 136(e) of the Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice under Section 174(1) of the Act had filed a ...
Malik Memorial Sports and Youth Welfare Club Vs. Bharat Heavy Electric ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WP No.18469o31. 10.2012 Shri Radhelal Gupta with Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the request of the petitioner's counsel the case is taken up out of its turn from the cause list of today and looking to the nature of the case, the same is taken for consideration. Heard on IA No.14326/12, an application for taking additional documents on record. The same appear to be relevant with the matter, hence by allowing the IA the same are taken on record. Heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as of interim relief, returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be issued to the respondents. Necessary steps alongwith requisites of registered posts in this regard be taken within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure the parties are directed to maintain the status quo with respect of the possession and the nature of ...
M.P. Athletics Association Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.8476/2011 (MP Athletics Association versus State of MP and another) 31.10.2012 Shri H.K.Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the respondent /State. Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 prays for two days' time to file a return, the said prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that several opportunities have been given to the said respondent but no return has been filed till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner is restricting the relief only to the extent of seeking a simple direction to the authority to decide the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner before the Registrar Firm and Societies, Bhopal against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar Firm and Societies registering the respondent No.2 and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with the aforesaid limi...
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.1795 / 2012 (Narendra Singh..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.31-10-2012 Shri Y.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh under the National Agriculture Development Scheme which has been promulgated for increasing the production to onions and has been flouted by the State of M.P.vide Annexure P-1. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the respondent/authorities under the aforesaid scheme. It is further directed that in case the petitioner does so along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the same shall be processed, in case so permissible, by the concerned authority in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that...
Rakesh Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Rakesh Nigam versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.18206 31. 10.2012: Shri Kamlakar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claims similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner w...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. Mr. S.R. Mohanty
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 Con.C.No.95/2010 Satish Kumar Verma Mr.S.R.Mohanty & others 31.10.2012 Petitioner present in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.alongwith Shri D.M.Chincholikar, Senior Drug Inspector, present. It is submitted by Shri Tiwari that he has filed compliance report on behalf of respondent No.4 on 30.10.2012 in the office in which it is stated that the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur has issued a circular to all the Incharge Police Stations to take action in respect of misuse of oxytocin injection. It is also informed by Shri Tiwari that the Superintendent of Police also directed T.I.Garha to take action in accordance with law against the person from whom 23 cartons of oxytocin injections were recovered. However, it is submitted that he may allowed further 10 days time to apprise this Court about the action taken by the aforesaid police officer in this regard. Prayer is allowed. Shri Chincholikar, Drug Inspector, present in Court submitted that in the entire State of M.P., there is no la...
Paramlal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.18102/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentio...
Essar Power M.P.Ltd. Vs. Collector Singrauli / Distt.Rehabilitation Of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.15739 o30. 10.2012 Shri Prayan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri M.K.Rajak, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Having heard on IA No.3890/12, an application on behalf of respondent No.4 for early hearing of this petition. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and office is directed to list this matter for final disposal in the list of motion hearing cases in the week commencing 26.11.2012. It is noted that in response of objection of the petitioner's counsel that return has not been filed in the matter on behalf of respondent no.4 till today, on which counsel for respondent No.4 submits that no return is required in the matter. Keeping in view such aspect also the aforesaid direction for final disposal has been given. Let this matter be listed alongwith W.P.No.12570/2010 and Contempt Petition No.364/2011. Such direction has been given at the request of the counsel for respondent no.4. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »