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.
Bhaiyalal Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16699/2012 08.10.2012 Shri C.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions men...
Eugene Tirkey Vs. Bhopal Development Authority
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.A.No.8/2011 08.10.2012 Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, P.L.for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 26.10.2010 in W.P.No.2519/2010 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant for payment of Gratuity, CPF, leave encashment was disposed of finally with following directions:- "They are heard. This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus against the respondents for payment of CPF, Gratuity and the amount in relation to leave encashment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the amount towards CPF has already been paid to the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is still in service and has been allotted to the new State of Chhattisgarh and is serving at Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. He further submitted that the amount of Gratuity and leave encashment shall be transferred to the new State of Chhattisgarh so that petitioner may be paid the...
Laloo @ Latif Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 Cr. A. No.2324/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2324/1996 Lallu @ Latif Ahmad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A.K. Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 8th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.12.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No.588/93, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences as under:- Section Act Sentence Fine amount Sentence in default of payment of fine 363 I.P.C. Two year's R.I. `250/- One month's R.I. 366 I.P.C. T...
Lal Chand Dasani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16117/2012 (Lal Chand versus State of M.P.& ors.) 08.10.2012 Heard Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the repeated notices being issued to the petitioner for deposit of arrears of property tax amounting to Rs.2,39,067/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited the entire property tax in respect of House N0.19, Gurandi Road, Madan Mohan Malviya Ward, Ward No.7, Zone 12, Ghanta Ghar, Jabalpur, but the respondent authorities by making incorrect calculation and not taken into consideration the amount already deposited by the petitioner are continuously issuing notices to the petitioner for deposit of property tax, which is increasing every month. It is submitted that as per the information made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, annexure P-7, the amount outstanding against th...
Ram Prasad Tamrkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.14351/12 (O).8.10.2012 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. In compliance of earlier order dated 18.9.2012, this case is listed today along with all connected petition in which similar question is involved for adjudication. In other listed similar petitions, return has been filed on behalf of State as submitted by Shri Dharmadhikari and in this petition, he seeks for and is granted a weeks time to file the return. Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week commencing 29.10.2012. Meanwhile, if the return is filed by the State within 7 days, then further within 10 days, the petitioners counsel is extended a liberty to file the rejoinder in the matter , if so desire. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, it is directed that the extracted material which is laying at the site of the Mine, be kept as it is by the respondent as well as the petitioner and the sam...
Smt. Shakuntala Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
smt. shankuntala versus state W.P.No.16247/2012 8-10-2012 Shri Shravan Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner in the matter of appointment of Aganwadi Karyakarta, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that petitioner and respondents No.6 and 7 were candidates who had participated in the process of selection to the post in question. A merit list was prepared in which petitioner was kept in Srl. No.1 and she has been appointed. Respondents No.6 and 7 challenged the said appointment. On scrutiny of the record by the Collector, it was found that appointments were to be made on the basis of 5th Class pass marks of a candidates and in the said class petitioner was granted general promotion and no separate merit was assigned while giving general promotion. Taking note of these factORS.it is held that and merely on the basis of...
Narayan Singh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16689/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking the following relief:- (I) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the petitioner entitled for fixation of his pay on promotion as Head Master, Middle School as per Rule 22-D of Fundamental Rule. The respondents be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner from the date of promotion as Head Master, Middle School in further to revise his pension. The respondents be also directed to pay the petitioner arrears of difference of pay and pension to the petitioner including interest @ 12% per annum. (ii) Any other relief or reliefs, order or ordeRs.direction or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of...
Kannulal Agrawal Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.11228 o8. 10.2012 Shri A.J.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Shri V.R.Rao, learned Sr.Adv for respondent. This case is listed today for consideration of interim relief but I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that he has filed IA No.12065/12 for withdrawal of this petition. Such original IA has not been placed on record. Let the same be requisitioned and place with the record during the couRs.of the day. Having perused the office copy of the counsel, for the reasons stated in it, the aforesaid IA is allowed and petitioner's counsel is permitted to withdraw this petition. Consequently this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Suresh Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Suresh Prasad Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri A.K.Dwivedi for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in M.S.Pateti Sankul Excellence Government Higher Secondary School, Lakhoura, Block Pushparajgarh and has been transferred from one school to another in the same District vide order-dated 11.7.2012. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that even though the petitioner was transferred on 11.7.2012, petitioner is being relieved not on 29.9.2012. That apart, pointing out various personal inconveniences due to family problems and education of children, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Petitioner is only transferred from one school to another in the same District and the grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order is permissible. In view of the above, finding no grou...
Tiranjan Deshmukh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
R.P.No.725/2012 08.10.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.This review petition has been filed stating that the petitioners were working in different Department and not in the School Education Department, therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2007, decided on 26.04.2007, though would be applicable but the respondents may take an objection that the petitioners are not employees of the School Education Department and, therefore, the similar law would not be made applicable. It is contended that relying on the law laid down by this Court, in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus State of M.P.and others and Om Prakash Chaturvedi versus State of M.P and otheRs.this Court has given the directions for all other employees. In view of this, the review of the order passed in W.P.No.12399/2012 on 22.08.2012 is sought for. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »