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.
Virendranath Rai Vs. Shri S. S. Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
CONC NO.1758/2011 29-10-2012 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Inter alia contending that certain orders passed in W.P.No.6763/2010(S) has not been complied with, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that the petitioner was working in the M.P.Road Transport Corporation and his services were terminated. The same was challenged before the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed for his reinstatement with certain consequential benefits. However, after reinstatement when the benefits of provident fund and salary was not extended to the petitioner, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.6763/2010(S).This court vide order dated 02-08-2010 Annexure C-1 disposed of the writ petition directing Provident Fund Commissioner and the officers of the M.P.Road Transport Corporation to settle the claim of the petitioner. Howeve...
Ashok Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Ashok Kumar Upadhayaya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 17997 / 2012 29.10.2012: Shri O.P. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer , for the respondents/State. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and pointing out irregularity in the selection with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and the rules framed under section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs. of statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner ...
Gram Panchayat Bhitoha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17181/2012 (Gram Panchayat Bhitoha versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.10.2012 Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent No.7 on advance copy. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent No.7, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition against an interim order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in case No.1585/Appeal/11-12, whereby the Commissioner by an interim order has stayed the operation of the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Collector, Rewa, whereby the respondent No.7, who was a Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Bhitoha has been removed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat, which has filed this petition after being authorised to do so by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Bhitoha, against the order of the Commissioner that there are serious allegation...
Baijnath Vs. Sukhendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.16606 o29. 10.2012 Shri S.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.12.2009, (Ann. P-2) whereby the case was directed to be proceeded exparte against them and their application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the exparte order has been dismissed with observation that they may participate in the further proceeding of the impugned suit. Having heard the counsel on perusing the papers placed on the record alongwith the impugned order, I have found that at the initial stage of the suit summons were sent to the petitioners and in response of it, inspite service of notice as per procedure prescribed under the law, the petitioner No.1 did not appear before the trial court. (as per record the petitioner no.1 refused to take such summons).on which the case was directed to be ...
Mrs.Girija Bai Daheriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16838/20129. 10.2012 Shri Vikas 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. The petitioners are the widows of the Teachers who were working in the School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and have died. Claim is made by the petitioners for grant of benefit to which their husbands were entitled to in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& others [W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) decided on 26.1.2007].Stating that the husbands of the petitioners were 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 husbands of the petitioners would also be entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate...
V.K. JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
V.K.Jain versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Shri Pratyush Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Naib Tehsildar and by the impugned order-dated 12.7.2012 he has been transferred from Hoshangabad to Balaghat. Challenging the transfer petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.11607/2012. This Court on 8.8.2012 vide Annexure P/14, took note of the grievance of the petitioner and found that the order of transfer has not been passed in violation to any statutory provision not does the same suffers from the vice of malafide. Accordingly, this Court did not find any ground to interfere into the matter. However, taking note of the fact that as representation of the petitioner is still pending, the petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation is considered and rejected vide Annexure P/16 and, therefore, petitioner...
Shiv Shankar Bele Vs. Van Mandal Adhikari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1 R.P.No.393/2010 Shiv Shankar Bele Van Mandal Adhikari & others 19.10.2012 Shri Ajay Tiwari, Counsel for petitioner. Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to argue the matter on the pretext that he is not possessing the file and the file is with Shri Ashok Shrivastava, Advocate, but we are not inclined to to grant adjournment as this Bench is specially sitting to hear this review petition. We have perused the review petition. From the perusal of the review petition, we find that petitioner is seeking review of the order on merits of the case. We had considered the merits of the case and by order dated 6.5.2010 in Writ Petition No.3984/2010(s).we have found that the reference was made after 10 years and the project where the petitioner was working was closed. Considering aforesaid, the Labour Court in place of reinstatement had directed payment of compensation to the petitioner, no fault was found. It is settled law that on merits, order cannot be reviewed. If there is ...
Smt. Noor Bano Vs. Bashir Mohd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1 W.P.No.16280 o19. 10.2012 Shri S.D.Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 27.8.12 (Annex.P/5) passed by the IV ADJ.Sagar in Co.No.6-A/11 whereby her application under section 45 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed. Petitioner's counsel, during the couRs.of the arguments, apprised me that in earlier litigation CS No.3-A/03 and 18-A/78, the petitioner or her predecessor-in-title were not impleaded as party and such judgment and findings are not binding against her. In such circumstance, in the available factual matrix, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within ten working days, notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.12755/12, returnable within six weeks, be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand automatically without further reference to the Bench. A...
Kanhaiyalal Patel Vs. Mohd. Ashif Iqbal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1 W.P.No.16285 o19. 10.2012 Shri Sanjay Agarwal, counsel for the petitioneRs.Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within ten working days, notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.12757/12, returnable within six weeks, be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure, till next hearing of this petition, the further proceedings of Co.No.13-A/2010 pending in the court of V Civil Judge Class- I, Sagar is hereby stayed. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
M.K. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1...W.A.No.1229 o19. 10.2012 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for respondents No.1,2 and 3. Shri Pratyush Tripathi, Counsel for respondent No.4. This appeal is directed against an order dated 8.10.2012 by which the learned Single Judge though entertained the writ petition against the transfer order but has declined interim relief. It is submitted that it was an executed transfer order by the appellant who had bonafidely executed the transfer order within the time period but because of allowing the representation of respondent No.4, the transfer order has been cancelled. It is submitted that till the decision of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the prayer of the appellant for ad interim writ. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally. As the learned counsel for the State has undertaken to file reply in the matter before 31st October,2012, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »