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.
Smt. Shahzaman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16245/2012 03/10/2012 Shri Matloob Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. 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 the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/20...
M.P. Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh Maryadit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 W.P.No.16698/2012 M.P Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh versus State of M.P & ORS.03.10.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent no.1 State to decide the pending application of the petitioner regarding recall of the order dated 9.4.2001 passed by the respondent authorities cancelling the allotment of the land admeasuring 42 acres allotted to the petitioner by order of allotment dated 22.5.1975. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities, without deciding the petitioner's application, which has been favourably forwarded by the Dy. Secretary on 29.4.2011, as is evident from page 40 of the petition, are asking the petitioner to cancel all the lease deeds and take action against the persons who have been allotted land by th...
Pradeep Kumar Malani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
I.T.A.No.11/2011 03.10.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondents. After hearing both the parties, we admit this appeal on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal was justifed in law in reversing the order of CIT(A) and sustaining the additions towards excess stock and investment in Daal Mill, ignoring the observation and finding recorded by the CIT(A) who after taking into consideration all the material, evidences, as well as the submission of the assessee, reached to the conclusion that additions made were not susbainable in the eye of law?." Be listed for hearing along with I.T.A.No.64/2009, as prayed by Shri Sanjay Lal. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Smt. Laxmi Sengar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16600/2012 (Smt. Laxmi Sengar versus State of MP and otheRs.03.10.2012 Heard Shri Umesh Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/police authorities are not conducting proper investigation into the incident in which the petitioner's son has been murdered. It is however apparent from a perusal of the petition that the police authorities have registered Crime No.330/2012 at Police Station, Pipariya and two persons namely; Mukesh Prajapati and Narendra Prajapati have been arrested and that the investigation in the matter is going on. In the circumstances, in case the petitioner has any additional information he may furnish the same to the police authorities who, it goes without saying, would look into the same. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Sobran Singh Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.15919/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The claim made in the petition is for grant of Kramonnati in terms of the Scheme made by the State Government. It is contended that making application of the similar benefits of the said Scheme, one of the employee of the very same department has been given the benefit of Kramonnati on completion of 12 years of service vide order dated 6.10.2009 (Annx.P/9).However, the claim of the petitioner is not being considered though representation is made. Looking to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner in terms of the circular of the State Government, keeping in view the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Principal of Kala Niketan Polytechnic College, Jabalpur, and if the petitioner is found entitled to the very same benefit, pass a...
Vashundhara Raje Charitable Trust Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.21632/2011 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.P. Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted. Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did...
Deepak Kumar Buddhe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Writ Petition No.16320/2012 03.10.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate on advance notice for respondents/State on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows:...
Anil Barange Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11150/2012 (Anil Barange....Vs....State of M.P.& ors.) 03-10-2012 Shri Sandeep Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner. MRS.Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by non-payment of his dues towards supply of drinking water to the Gram Panchayat, Jamlapani, on the ground of paucity of funds as has been intimated by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pandhurna, District Chhindwara vide communication dated 19-5-2008. In the circumstances, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to make payment of his dues expeditiously. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, looking to the document, Annexure P-1, filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition in support of his submissions, the petition fi...
Sabir Mohammad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16323/2012 03.10.2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. 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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- Next ›
- Last »