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.
Sheikh Sabir Mansoori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16812/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds...
Smt. Pravati Bai Vs. Kishan Singh Yadav (Rohan) @ KishIn Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Civil Revision No.236/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard on the question of admission. This is the revision petition filed by the applicants challenging the validity of order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the trial Court by which the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Facts giving rise to filing of the revision petition briefly stated are that the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking the relief of cancellation of sale-deed and for permanent injunction. The applicants/defendants filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which an objection was raised about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the reliefs claimed in the suit have not been found properly valued and the suit is barred by the provisions of Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. ...
Lubna MahIn Rangrej Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.16902/2012 Lubna Mahin Rangrej State of M.P.& others 10.10.2012 Shri T.N.Dubey, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Kaurav that for considering the similar complaints, a Committee constituted as the Admission and Fees Regulatory Committee, is considering the grievance of other persons and the date of hearing has been fixed as 15.10.2012. It is submitted that petitioner may be directed to approach the said Committee. To this, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come before this Court with a different complaint in respect of manipulation in the counselling and this grievance can be redressed only by this Court. In this petition, the dispute is in respect of allotment of the seat and the allegations of the petitioner are that the private colleges were facilitated in the counselling and their vacant seats were not disclosed for the allotment. This grievance can be looked into by the aforesaid Committe...
Gaibinath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16862/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya & others versus State of M.P.& others [2006 (1) MPLJ 23 .as also in the case of Ram Naresh Pathak versus State of M.P.[W.P.No.13520/2006(S)].and the bunch of cases decided on 25.9.2006, the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages of the period when he was not continued in the employment on account of making application of a circular and retiring the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that the petitioner though is reinstated in service, such wages have not been paid to him. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra).this writ petition is disposed of...
Ambika Singh Vs. Shri Manish Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Ambika Singh versus Manish Shrivastava & ORS.Con.C.No.1628/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Advance copy of the application for contempt has already been served on Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. They pray for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply in the matter. List the matter in the week commencing from 19th of November, 2012. Names of Shri Uttam Maheshwari and Shri J.K.Pillai be indicated in the cause list, as counsels appearing for the respondents. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
RobIn Alies Ranjan Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.17559/2012 (Robin versus State of M.P.& ors.) 10.12.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that though the respondent police authorities have registered a crime No.301/12 at P.S.Kotwali, Katni on 27.04.2012 under Sections 365, 452, 323/34 of the I.P.C.against respondent Nos.5 to 8, they have not been arrested till date and no further proceedings have been taken against them. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the police authorities have already registered an FIR and investigation is under progress. It is also clear that the petitioner had also approached the higher police authorities for mitigation of his grievances. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Katni to look into the grievances of the petitioner and deal wit...
Suman Devi Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16994/12 10.10.2012: Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School Ward No. 3, Sohagpur, District Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13072012 passed by the Collector (Tribal Development). DistrictShahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Middle School Ward No. 3 to Govt. Middle School Badhwawda. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the studentsteacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education ...
VipIn Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
vipin kumar mishra versus state W.P.No.17082/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has been denied appointment on contract basis on the post of Assistant Teacher and instead appointment is granted to him on the post of Contract Teacher mainly on the ground that petitioner does not possess a B.Ed or D.Ed Degree. It is a case of the petitioner that possession of the aforesaid qualification is not necessary for grant of compassionate appointment and many other persons have been granted the benefit even though the aforesaid qualification is not available with them. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat RampurBaghelan, District Satna respondent No.8 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and after taking note of the benefit granted to other employees as indicated herein above, decide the claim of the petit...
South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.17043/2012 S.E.C.L versus State of M.P.& ORS.10.10.2012 Heard Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rajas Pohankar for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the respondent Municipal Council dated 22.9.2012 whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,22,122/- towards arrears of property tax. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and has been regularly depositing tax on the basis of its self-assessment till the year 2012. It is submitted that the tax assessed by the petitioner has been paid on the basis of the survey and assessment that the petitioner had conducted through the Civil Department of the petitioner and, thereafter, on the basis of the land exigible to tax the petitioner has been regularly depositing tax in accordance with the rates as pre...
President / Manager Vrihtakar Prathmik Krishi Sahkari Sakh Samiti, Gra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.15742/12 (O).10.10.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-Society has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 31.7.2010 (Annexure- P-4) passed by the respondent no.1 Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner Indore, in Gratuity Appeal No.110/10, affirming the order dated 16.12.2009, passed by Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Labour Officer District Balaghat, in case no.92/05, whereby the petitioner-Society was directed to pay the sum of Rs.54,503/- (Rs.Fifty four thousand, five hundred and three only) to the petitioner under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with averments of the petition argued the matter for admission and allowing this petition. Keeping in view...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »