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.
Baijnath Kumhar Vs. the State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.6816/2005 10.10.2012 Ms.Gayatri Lahaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate counsel for the respondents/State. Learned Government Advocate prayed for another opportunity to file the return. It is seen that the notices were issued to the respondents on 09.09.2005. The matter relates to date of birth of the petitioner. However, looking to the age of the petitioner, as a last opportunity, four weeks' time is allowed to the respondents to file the return, failing which personal appearance of respondent No.2 would be ordered before this Court to explain the default. List after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Harishankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16766/12 10.10.2012: Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Keeping in view the order already passed by this Court in the case of Maha Singh Marabi and others versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.10071/10 (s) on 2 nd December, 2011 and the order passed in W.P.No.10000/10 Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and others versus State of M.P.and another and as the relief claimed by the petitioners is similar in the aforesaid two cases, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners herein also in the light of the orders already passed on 2/12/11 in the cases as referred to hereinabove and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Petitioners be also conferred the similar benefit as conferred to other similarly situated employees by virtue of the orders passed as indicated hereinabove. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified...
GayasuddIn Ahmed Vs. Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
M.C.C.No.629/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Pratiyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This application has been filed for extension of time for compliance of the order dated 6.8.2008 passed in M.C.C.No.1591/2008. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though in compliance of order dated 6.8.2008 a sum of Rs.100/- has been deposited in the Office of M.P.High Court Legal Aid Committee however, the applicants on account of inadvertence could not cure the defect. Learned counsel for the applicants states that defect shall be cured within a period of 7 days from today. It is well settled in law that the party should not be made to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel. [See Rafiq and another versus Munshilal and another, AIR 198.SC 140.and Secretary Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another versus Raghu Raj, AIR 200.SC 514].In the interest of justice by way of last indulgence time for complian...
Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, School Education ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15702/20110. 10.2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Shaheen Fatima, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No.5 and accepts notice of the writ petition on behalf of respondent No.5. A copy of the writ petition has already been received by him and he seeks time to file the return. Let the return be filed by respondent No.5 within the aforesaid period. No process fee is required to be paid for issuance of notice to respondent No.5. Any promotion on the post of Joint Director in the department hence-after would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. List along with W.P.No.12011/2012 immediately after six weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.9829/2006 10.10.2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he approached the Labour Court by way of making an application under Section 31(3).61 and 62 of the M.P.Industrial Relations Act, 1960, claiming the regularisation, classification as also grant of regular pay scale. Such a claim of the petitioner was contested, but was decided by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner on 25.8.2000. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Pursuance to the said order, the petitioner was granted the benefit of regular pay scale and arrears were calculated and paid to the petitioner. However, subsequently and amendment was made in the order on 4.8.2004 fixing the salary of the petitioner on the minimum of the pay scale without any increment. The grievance of the petitioner is that this could not have been done as t...
Shalabh Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.17184/2012 Shalabh Jaiswal versus State of M.P.& ORS.10.10.2012 Heard Shri S.R.Tamrakar learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's Video Parlour has been closed down by the police authorities without giving any opportunity of hearing and are not informing him as to the reason for closing of the Video Parlour though the petitioner has requested the police authorities for the same and has also filed a representation before the authorities but the police authorities in an arbitrary manner are neither informing the petitioner as to the reason for closing of the Video Parlour not are they permitting the petitioner to operate the same. In the circumstances, as the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad, the petition fi...
Ram Kishor Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15430/20110. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The claim made by the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of M.N.Vankhede and another versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.W.P.No.18652/2003, as also by a decision rendered in the case of Sewakram Bhede & another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.5688/2005, decided on 30.07.2007. The order passed in the case of Sewakram Bhede & another (supra) was called in question before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.754/2012 by the State, respondents herein. The said writ appeal has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that instead of granting the benefit of leave encashment for a period of 240 days, the said benefit would be available for a period of 120 days to the persons like the petitioner in the present case. It is seen that similar is the claim made by th...
Dr. M.F. Khan Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15542/2012 (Dr. M.F.Khan versus Md.Nagarjuna & ors.) 10.12.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are delisting the shares of the respondent No.1 Company after he had invested a sum of Rs.44 lacs without any rhyme or reason, therefore, the entire record relating to demerger and amalgamation of the two sister concern be directed to be produced before this court and the Respondent No.1/company be directed to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.44 lacs to protect the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the Security Exchange Board of India be directed to initiate legal proceedings against the respondent No.1/Company for listing the shares without completing the necessary formalities and to produce the entire record relating to blocked money of investORS.The petitioner has also prayed for taking acti...
Kishore Samrite Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.17073/2012 Kishore Samrite versus State of M.P.& ORS.10.10.2012 Heard Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Sahina Fatima for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are not taking any action against respondent nos.7 to 9 inspite of the fact that they have incurred disqualification subsequent to their election and are, therefore, not qualified to hold the post of councillors under section 38 of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 on account of their conviction in a criminal case. It is, however, observed from a perusal of the petition that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority as prescribed under section 38(2) of the Act for mitigation of his grievance but has directly approached this Court. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition which is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to do so. With th...
Anil Kumar Pahariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15832/2012 (A.K.Pahariya versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Heard Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communication dated 15.09.2011 and 26.10.2009 by which the petitioner has been informed that his contract for construction of shopping complex has been cancelled/terminated on account of the fact that he has stopped work and is not completing the same. Apparently, the dispute between the parties is purely contractual and in such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to either take up the arbitration proceedings or to file a civil suit before the competent court as may be advised, as this court is not required to go into the disputed questions of fact and decide a purely contractual dispute under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »