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.
M/S Builders Associates Vs. the Executive Engineer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 m/s builders associates vs. the executive engineer HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR AC No.20/2012 M/s BUILDERS ASSOCIATES VS. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 5-10-2012 ) This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for resolution of the dispute between the parties.2. Petitioner claims to be an establishment engaged in work of Construction or other Civil engineering works. Respondent the Executive Engineer is said to have issued a notice inviting offer for 2 m/s builders associates vs. the executive engineer construction of...
KishIn Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16463/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in ...
Kamta Singh Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.14334/2012 05.10.2012 Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The contention of the petitioners is that though they are similarly situated to one Dinesh Patel, who has approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.6153/2012 (s) which has been disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2012 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the said person within a fixed period, similar relief is not being granted to the petitioners by the departmental authorities, though after the consideration of representation of the said Dinesh Patel (supra).the order has been issued on 14.05.2012. It is contended that the petitioners have again made the representation. Looking to the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 23.04.2012 passed by this Court in the case of Dinesh Patel (supra) as also t...
Ratnesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Urban Admin ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15856/20105. 10.2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena versus State of M.P.& Others S.L.P.(Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controveRs.involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarification of ...
Smt. Munni Devi Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.11655/2011 (Smt. Munni Devi Garg versus State of MP and otheRs.05.10.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Pandey, 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 the respondents/police authorities on the complaint filed by her. In the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Rewa is directed to look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute anybody but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and if action has not been taken in accordance with law issue appropriate direction do to so and ensure that the faith of the public in the police administration is strengthened and affirmed. To enable the Superintendent of Police, Rewa to do so, a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petit...
NaraIn Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.16489/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned i...
Abrar Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16479/20105. 10.2012 Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that controveRs.involved in this case has already been put at rest by the order of this Court passed in the case of K.L.ASr.versus State of M.P and otheRs.W.P.No.1070/2003(s) decided on 07/11/2005. Similar law was made applicable in the case of Samaypal Mahasangh, Bhopal versus State of M.P and otheRs.W.P.No.23195/2003(s).This Court has considered the aspect of granting the benefit of Karmonnati to such persons in the aforesaid case in the following manner:- ......As far as the extending the benefit of kramonnati is concerned for the employees who are working in the work charge establishment, the matter has been decided by this Court vide order dated 07/11/2005, W.P.(s) No.1070/2003 in K.L.ASr.versus State of M.P.In case any individual employee, who is member of the petitioner's association is still aggrieved by non-grant of promotion or not ...
Shiv Shankar Sarode Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16436/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court where it has been held that in case an employee is granted a benefit of Kramonnati on account of stagnating on one post for a period of 12 or 24 yeaRs.the said benefit cannot be withdrawn on account of subsequent promotion. As per the instructions issued by the State Government, the salary of the person is to be fixed in accordance to the scale of pay on which he was working before the date of his promotion in terms of Fundamental Rule 22-A. The issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.379/2009, Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of M.P.& otheRs.vide order dated 19.07.2011. The aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of in the following manner : 9. The fact remains that the petitioner has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this date she was drawing the salary of Rs.9,900/- b...
Ku. Santosh Khatri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16384/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. 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 petitione...
Suresh Kumar Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Suresh Kumar Rajak versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16931 5. 10.2012: Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Assistant Development and Extension Officer, Mohogaon, District Mandla and by the order Annexure P-1 dated 12.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Janpad Panchayat Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that nobody has been posted in place of petitioner and the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Mohgaon has indicated that only three posts are available in the area and if petitioner is transferred working in the district will be adversely effected, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. That apart, pointing out certain personal inconveniences due to education of his children petitioner wants interference into the matter. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- Next ›
- Last »