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.
Ghanshyam Prasad Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Ghanshyam Prasad Dubey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16979/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Office Assistant Grade-III in the MP Poorva Khshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Jabalpur. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government, in the Department of Energy, has passed an order-dated 10.4.2012 Annexure P/1 exercising powers under section 131 read with section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sections 23, 24 and 25 of the MP Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 read with MP Electricity Reform (FiRs.Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2003 whereby final transfer and absorption of personnel from the MP State Electricity Board to the successor entity have been ordered in the terms contained in order-dated 10.4.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said final transfer and absorption list, petitioners name appears but even though orders hav...
Govind Rai Contractor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16765/2012 (Govind Rai versus State of M.P.& ors.) 08.10.2012 Heard Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision dated 10.07.2012, whereby the respondent No.5 has terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner for construction of Hoshangabad by-pass road. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid cancellation, the petitioner has already approached the authorities by invoking the arbitration clause, i.e., clause 29 of the agreement on 06.08.2012 and notices pursuant to that have been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that though the matter is pending decision before the Arbitrator, but during the pendency of the matter, the authorities have issued a fresh advertisement on 31.08.2012 for awarding the remaining part of the work to another contractor and to recover the dues and loss, if any caused ...
J.C.Maheshwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15687/20108. 10.2012 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he should be given benefits of advance increments in terms of provisions of Fundamental Rules 22-D in the light that he was promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of Upper Division Teacher. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that State Administrative Tribunal has granted the said benefits in bunch of Original Applications filed before it and the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.1104 of 2001 (State of M.P.versus Dayaram Patidar) decided on 04.10.2002 and also in other similar type of cases has also affirmed the said order. The respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments in terms of 22-D in the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench in 2002 in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra).In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petition is dispo...
Madhya Pradesh Poorve Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Pro ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16336/2012 (MPPKVV Co.LTD.versus APFC & anr.) 08.10.2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in review. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain amounts, already paid by the petitioner, have not been properly taken into consideration while rejecting the petitioner's review as a result of which the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an application before the authorities asking them to again consider and recalculate the petitioner's arrears but the authorities have not done so and on the other hand they are proceeding further for recovering the alleged dues. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance copy, submits that the authorities shall ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Motilal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 C.R.2004/97 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CIVIL REVISION No.2004/1997 .........Applicant: National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rewa, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Marhatal, Jabalpur. N.A.No.4 Versus ......Non-applicant:1. Motilal, S/o Shri Teerath Prasad, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Kach. P.S.And Tahsil Naighari, District Rewa, M.P.Claimant 2. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through its Manager Depot Satna, District Satna, M.P.N.A.No.1 3. Sabeen Ullah Khan, S/o Shri Ajit Allah Khan, Driver of Bus not MKW. 7622 MPSRTC, Depot, Satna, M.P.N.A.No.2 4. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, owner of Jeep not MHY 7017.resident of Hiralal Colony, Ameheiya, District Rewa,M.P.N.A.No.3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Pramod Sahu, Advocate Respondent No.1 by - None Respondent no.2 by - Sh...
Sukhdeo Jadhav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15741/20108. 10.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by the petitioner that the order impugned has been said to be issued on 14.12.2007 but was never served on the petitioner. For the fiRs.time he came to knot about such a recovery order only when recovery was started from his salary of the last month. According to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to him for alleged misconduct. Even otherwise without conducting an enquiry, no recovery could have been ordered. In view of the aforesaid, the operation of impugned order dated 14.12.2007, so far it relates to the petitioner, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Ramswaroop Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8976/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Bramhadatt Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the application in respect of applicant No.1 Ramswaroop Rai. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the application in respect of applicant no.1 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant no.2 Smt. Salochna (Sulochna) under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.295/12 registered at P.S.Bareli, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the allegation made against this applicant and other Co.accused is that they entered into the house of complainant Rajendra with preparatio...
Bhaisasur Mahila Swa Shahayta Samuh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.10179/2012 (Bhaisasur Mahila Swa Sahayata Samiti versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 08.10.2012 Heard Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the work of supply of mid-day meals awarded to the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector, Chhatarpur against the act of the respondents but the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner under a misconception and, therefore, he be granted liberty to again file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondents. Looking to the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been made in the petition, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned action of the respondents by filing an appeal before the ...
Atul Kumar Agrawal Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpotation Ltd. and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.5824 o8. 10.2012 Shri N.K.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2, although served. In view of listing the matter for admission and consideration of other pending IA No.1596/12, an application of respondent no.3 for early hearing of this petition does not require any further consideration, hence the same is disposed of. On asking the petitioner's counsel to make the submission on the question of admission as well as pending IA No.12338/12 filed by respondent no.3 for dismissal of this petition, on which petitioner's counsel seeks short adjournment to make the submission on admission and also to file reply of aforesaid IA. On making certain query from the petitioner's counsel on which he fairly submits that during the pendency of this petition the construction, as stated in the IA by the respondent No.3, has been carried out by the petitioner over the disputed land but subject to order of th...
Satish Kumar Gondane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Satish Kumar Gondane versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.15916 8. 10.2012: Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Asst. Grade-III in the office of Collector Chhindwara and by the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from Chhindwara to Seoni. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner's wife is a Income Tax Inspector and if petitioner is transferred the husband and wife will be separated. That apart, pointing out various personal difficulties and breach of transfer policy this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that merely because transfer policy is violated interference into the matter of transfer cannot be called for by this Court in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others versus S.L.Abbas (1993) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Next ›
- Last »