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.
Prem Lal Ukey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Prem Lal Ukey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16592 18. 10.2012: Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 Shri Jag Lal Thakre has filed an affidavit today along with documents being document not D/1 dated 13.10.2012 indicating that the charge of Principal of the aforesaid school has been handed over to the petitioner on 13.10.2012 vide handing over of charge memo dated 13.10.2012. In view of above affidavit filed by respondent No.4, no further action is required to be taken in the matter and the petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The petition is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. M.P. State Civil Supply Corporation Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Ramesh Chand Gupta versus MP State Civil Supply Corporation LTD.& Anr. W.P.No.17340/2012 18/10/2012 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week. Petitioner is suspended vide order Annexure-P6 dated 4.10.2012 and the only reason given for suspension is that the petitioner had not complied with an order of transfer passed on 12.9.2012. The order passed on 12.9.2012 indicates that the representation of the petitioner is allowed and on his own request, the order is passed transferring the petitioner. However, after the order was passed on 12.9.2012, the controlling authority under whom the petitioner was posted has not relieved the petitioner and instead wrote a letter, as is evident from Annexure-P3 and P4 requesting for cancelling petitioner's transfer. Finally, the petitioner was relieved on 4.10.2012 and on the same date, petitioner is suspended on the ground that he has not complied with the order pas...
Nasir Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 W.P.14641 o18. 10.2012 Shri Anup Saxena, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastav, PL for the respondent/State. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.5.12 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Civil Judge Class-II in Co.No.25-A/12 whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Order 9 rule 7 of the CPC after four years from the date of proceeding ex-parte against it, such ex-parte order has been set aside. Pursuant to it, the respondent has been extended the opportunity to file the written statement and the opportunity of hearing in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. After taking me through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order petitioners counsel argued that the impugned application was filed at very belated stage near about after 4 years from the date of proceeding ex-parte against the respondent/state withou...
Radhavallabh Vs. Rameshwardayal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Writ Petition No.16120/12 18.10.2012 Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 7.5.2012 (Annexure- P-5) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bairasia, District Bhopal in revenue appeal No.78/Appeal/2010-11, affirming the order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure-P-4) passed by Tahsildar in revenue case No.48/A-6/2010-2011 whereby, the name of the respondents no.1 to 3, had been directed to be mutated in the revenue record with respect of the disputed land. Such order has been passed on the strength of some succession certificate issued by the Succession Court on dated 6.1.1983 (Annexure-P-3).In the couRs.of arguments in view of provision of Section 44 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in which the Second Appeal is provided against the order passed by the SDO in the fiRs.appeal of the revenue case so also in view of pro...
Brijendra Bihari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
WRIT PETITION No.10684/20118. 10.2012 None for the petitioneRs.Perused the record. The claim of the petitioners is that though they have discharged the duties on the post on which they were appointed, they are not being paid the wages, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that the salary w.e.f.the month of January, 2011 till not has not been paid, though several applications have been made by the petitioneRs.Looking to the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look into the claim made by the petitioners by their representations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and if any salary is to be paid to the petitioneRs.to pay the same within the aforesaid period. With the aforesaid the writ petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Sk...
The Managing Director Vs. Agrawal Indotex Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
W.P.No.786/2012 18.10.2012 Shri Shekhar Bhargava learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kishore Shrivastava learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Sanjay Agrawal and Shri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5, although represented through duly engaged counsel. In compliance of the order dated 6.9.2012 an affidavit of Gopal Chand Tarachand Agrawal, Director of respondent No.1 Company has been placed on record. Alongwith such affidavit various documents have been annexed. Out of them document -F has been annexed as terms of Settlement between the parties. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 does not have any objection in disposing of this petition according to the terms of the aforesaid settlement, Annexure F. In continuation he said that as per terms of this settlement he did not have any objection to hand over the demand draft of...
Surendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Surendra Kumar Mishra versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17335/2012 18/10/2012 Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Education Guarantee Scheme. Subsequently, the post was re- designated as 'Guruji'. Order Annexure-P1 is the appointment order of the petitioner. It is seen from the records that a decision was taken by the State Government to appoint Guruji. Instructors and Supervisors on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. and it was also decided to conduct an examination for appointment of the Shala Shikshak Grade-III amongst the Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. The rules stipulated a condition to the effect that a candidate to be entitled for appointment and qualifying the selection process should posse...
Sushil Raikwar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2259 OF 199.Sushil Raikwar. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 18th day of October, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21/11/1996 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.574/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that on 13...
Arjun Dongre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Arjun Dongre & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17434/2012 18/10/2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Seeking a direction to consider and grant benefit to the petitioners in accordance with the certain directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.596/2010 (Gopal Chawla and ORS.versus State of M.P.& Ors.) on 15.12.2010, petitioners have filed this writ petition. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that similar orders as have been passed in the case of Gopal Chawla & ORS.(Supra) be passed in the case of present petitioners also. Having considered the aforesaid submissions put forth by the petitioners and on taking note of the subsequent developments that have taken place, I am not inclined to grant any benefit to the petitioneRs.After the order passed on 15.12.2010 in the case of Gopal Chawla (Supra) directing the State Government to examine the claim of the Gurujis for grant of appropriate pay scale, the State Government has taken a...
M/S Lucky Travel Agency Through Partners Mohd. Dawood Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
W.P.No.8801/2012 18.10.2012 Shri Adeel Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mohan Sosarkar, learned counsel for the respondents. On asking the respondents' counsel whether the impugned circular Annexure P-5 has been issued under some statutory provision or it has been issued on the basis of some departmental decision which is not falling under the statutory provision on which by referring the photocopy of decision of Madras High Court in the matter of M/S.United Visa Services PVT.LTD.versus Union of India and others decided on 21.12.2011 in W.P.No.21787/2011 whereby various petitions of the similar nature have been decided said that on consideration all the petitions have been dismissed by such High Court and the petitioneRs.case is also based on the same ground and circumstances. He also referred some orders of the decided cases of some other High Courts, in which also the petitions of the concerning agents/petitioners have been dismissed. In such premises, respondents' co...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »