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.
Chhunnu Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16427/2012 (Chhunnu Jaiswal versus State of MP and otheRs.03.10.2012 Heard Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents/police authorities in the incident of the death of the petitioner's son. It is however evident from the statement of the petitioner himself in the petition that a case has alreay been registered by the police authorities against unknown persons under section 279, 304-A of the I.P.C.and investigation in the matter is going on and therefore, in case the petitioner wishes to bring certain facts to the notice of the investigating authorities, his remedy is to approach them. It is however, stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police authorities are not taking the statement of the petitioner into consideration. In the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Singrouli is directed to look into the matter and deal with ...
S.K.Jaysawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15680/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate 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 03/09/2...
Sampat Lal Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16318/2012 03.10.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate 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 mentioned in ...
M/S. Wavelenth Salons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11231/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
M/S Babyliss Beauty and Health Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11230/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Anwar Ali Qureshi Vs. Northern Coal Fields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.15926/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in terms of the order dated 29.7.2008, passed in Writ Petition No.8225/2008(S).the joining of the petitioner was accepted, but the payment of salary from the date he earlier gave his joining, which was not accepted compelling him to approach this Court, has not been made, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner was transferred vide order issued by the competent authority against which a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P.No.6342/2008(S).The same was decided on 26.5.2008 directing to decide the representation of the petitioner without granting any interim protection. The said representation of the petitioner was decided on 26.6.2008, pursuance to which he g...
Mangal Sapkale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
mangal sapkale versus State W.P.No.16528/2012 3.10.2012 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be a daily wages employee working in the Public Works department for more than 10 years since 1994. It is a case of the petitioner that as he has been working for more than 10 years he is entitled to be regularized in accordance to the policies and Circulars of the State Government. Considering the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 and the circulars issued in pursuance to the same, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policies formulated as indicated herein above and decide it within the period of three months. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) ...
Mohammad Shafi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.10751/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents. The claim made by the petitioner is that there was policy decision of the State Government reducing the qualifying services for the purposes of grant of benefit of pension, so issued in the year 1996 but the benefit is not extended to the petitioner and he has not been given the pension as yet. It is contended that the controveRs.raised in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court Bench at Gwalior against which a Writ Appeal No.353/2009 was preferred by the State Government which has been decided on 12/08/2010, reported in 2011(2)MPHT, 113, ( State of M.P.and others versus Mohammad Sadiq) . Even after passing this order, the benefit is not extended to the petitioner, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. The notices of this writ petition were issued to the respondents a...
Virendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.14076/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Pursottam Das Nema Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16264/2012 03/10/2012 Shri Vikash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- Next ›
- Last »