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.
Sharda Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 Writ Petition No.17247/2012 (s) 16/10/2012 : Shri Awadhesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioneRs.who are Prerak, Jan Shiksha Kendra, under Central Literacy Mission, have approached this Court vide this petition seeking direction for quashment of order dated 25-03-2009 and a direction to the respondents to continue petitioners as Prerak with back wages and with consequential benefits with permissible interest and a further direction to the respondents to absorb him on the post on which he is working. The issue as raised here in this petition was also subject matter of bunch of petitions being Writ Petitions No.590/11(s).14317/11(s).12477/09(s).17/10(s) and 17448/10(s).The petitions were heard and decided on 15-09-11 in the following terms :- Respondents are directed to take steps for continuing the petitioners and for ensuring their continuation under the new scheme after evaluating the qualification and other requirement and proceed to consider the cases of the p...
Rajkumar Burman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.15887 o12. 10.2012 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.claimant has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent No.2 to execute and recover the sum of Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the competent court in compliance of the award dated 7.7.2009 passed under the provision of Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act. In the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, the authorities of the respondent No.2 is directed to take an endeavour to expedite the proceeding for execution of the aforesaid RRC, (Ann. P-2) and recover the sum of the same from the respondent No.3. After recovering such sum be paid to the petitioner. Such exercise be carried out within 90 days from the date of submitting the certifi...
Shri Shreeniwas Sarawagi Mahavidyalaya Vs. Ass. Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 W.P.No.10457/2008 Shreeniwas Sarawagi versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 12.10.2012 Shri P.C.Chandak learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would approach the appellate authority for mitigation of his grievance against the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 5.8.2008 and, therefore, the petition, filed by the petitioner, be permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he be granted 30 days time to approach the appellate authority and till orders on the petitioner's interim application are not passed by the authority, the interim order passed by this Court may be continued. In view of the aforesaid, while the petition is permitted to be withdrawn, it is observed that in case the petitioner files an appeal, as undertaken by him within thirty days alongwith an application for stay and reg...
Arun Kumar Bahelia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 W.P.NO.11929/11 (I).12.10.2012. Ku.C.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of listing the case IA No.8920/12, petitioner's application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner / plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.6.2011 (Ann. P.10) whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent/ defendant to supply the electricity in his premises, in alternate the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the MPSEB to provide him new connection is made. In the couRs.of the argument in view of nature of the impugned suit whereby the petitioner has filed the same only for recovery of sum and not for other purpose, on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of amended provis...
institute of Management and Technologies Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.6259 o12. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.institution has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of demand notices, (Anns. P-4 & P-5) issued by respondent bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. In view of the provisions of aforesaid enactment in which the petitioner has remedy to challenge the aforesaid impugned notices, (Anns. P-4 & P-5) through appropriate proceeding, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel regarding maintainability of this petition, on which instead to argue further on admission of merits seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. Considering such prayer the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and n...
Moolchand Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Writ Petition No.15669/12. 12.10.2012 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondents no.3 to grant further temporary permit to the respondent no.4 on the route Pindrai to Mandia via Nainpur just ahead 5 minutes from the regular permit of the petitioner of the same route. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent no.3 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before granting further temporary permit to the respondent no.4 on the above said route is also made. After taking me through the papers placed on the record, petitioners counsel by referring the copy of the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the Co.ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition NO.7564/2006, has made his limited pra...
Ku. Radha Paraste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.17325 / 2012 (Ku. Radha Paraste ..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.12-10-2012 Heard Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3 in making payment without obtaining an approval from the petitioner who states that she is the President of Janpad Panchayat, Niwas, District Mandla. The petitioner is an elected President of Janpad Panchayat and in case the petitioner has any grievance against the Chief Executive Officer, the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Collector concerned for mitigation of her grievances but the petitioner without doing so has directly approached this Court by filing the present petition. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing an application bringing to his notice the aforesaid grievances and in case she...
In Reference:- (Narendra Sharma) Vs. Ashok Singh Bhadoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Cr.R.1328 o12. 10.12 Shri Koushlesh Pandey, counsel for the respondents. This suo-motu revision is listed for consideration of IA No.1018/12 for recalling the order dated 9.12.2011 directed the non-bailable warrant against respondent Ashok Singh Bhadoriya and Ramendra Singh Bhadoriya. On earlier occasion vide dated 3.7.12, the case was adjourned with a direction to list the matter on 1.10.12 and the respondents were also directed to remain present on such date but for one reason or another best known to the office, the case was not taken-up on such date, hence the case is listed today. I deem fit to hear the aforesaid IA in presence of the respondents, hence office is directed to place this matter on 26.11.12 and the counsel Shri Pandey is directed to keep present the respondents before the court on such date. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
R.P. Agrawal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.15419 o12. 10.12 Shri Nikhil Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.Dharmadhikari, GA for respondent/State. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days, notice against admission as well as on interim relief, returnable by fixing the date within six weeks, be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo with all respect of the disputed mine as it exists today. Case be listed on the date which is so mentioned on the aforesaid notices. C.C as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Raju @ Rajmal Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.19526/2011 (Ashutosh Upadhyay versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.10.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities have not released the payment amounting to Rs.13,50,360/- in respect of 4 stop dams constructed by the petitioner in Pali and Karkeli, district Umaria. It is submitted that the authorities had infact examined the bills, prepared the cheque of the aforesaid amount, however, suddenly the same were cancelled and the payment of the petitioner was withheld. As it was stated that the outstanding amount against the petitioner is undisputed, therefore, notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have filed a return and submitted that while preparing the final bills of the petitioner and other documents relating to the construction of four ...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »