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.
Vice Chancellor Vs. Jagdish Prasad Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Vice Chancellor & Anr. versus Jagdish Prasad Patel Writ Petition No.16437 5. 10.2012: Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioner University has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court Satna exercising powers under the Payment of Wages Act 1946 and directing for payment of unpaid wages of `17,328/- to the respondent employee. It is stated by Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel that the respondent employee was terminated. However, on an award being passed by the Labour Court under the the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act he was reinstated and the award passed by the Labour Court was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.99/2011. When the said writ petition was pending, between the period 2.2.2011 to 2.8.2011 in pursuance to the requirement of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act last wages drawn to the employee was granted. However, after the matter was finalized on the ground that the last wages ...
Sudhakar Sendre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
M.C.C.No.1023/2012 05.10.2012 Dr. R.B.Dubey, Advocate for Shri A.N.Giri, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.10024/2012, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in making the application for restoration of the writ petition dismissed in default. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the counsel, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the MCC is condoned. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended that W.P.No.6951/2007 was listed on 6.2.2012 before this Court, but on account of not noting the case in the cause list circulated by the Bar, learned counsel for the applicant could not appear before the Court when the case was called for hearing. Such averments are also supported by an affidavit. Whether such a ground is sufficient to recall the order of dismissal of the writ petition and restore the petition or not, is not to be considered in view of the fact that a litigant may n...
Maharishi Ashtang Medical Organization Chhatarpur, Vs. National Counci ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.14541/2012 Maharishi Ashtang Medical N.C.T.E.& others Organization, Chhatarpur 5.10.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 on advance notice. This petition is listed for hearing on admission. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of recognition is pending before respondent no.2 since 29.9.2011 for D.EL.ED., couRs.and the respondent no.2 be directed to decide the application expeditiously. From the perusal of Annexure P-2, it appears that the application of petitioner for grant of recognition is pending since 29.9.2011, which deserves attention of respondent no.2. In view of aforesaid, without making any comment on the merits of the case, we dispose of this petition with following directions:- 1. Petitioner to submit an application to respondent no.2 for expeditious decision on the application dated 29.9.2011 seeking recognition for D.EL.ED., course.2. The r...
Bhagwandas Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16483/20105. 10.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, 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 o...
Ramesh Prasad Namdev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.8231/2012 (R.P.Namdeo versus State of M.P.& ors.) 05.10.2012 Shri N.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Ku. Roshni Namdeo, daughter of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's daughter has been abducted by respondent No.4 Annu @ Sumar Choudhary. The respondents have filed a return and the progress report indicating that after investigation and enquiry in the missing person's report, filed by the petitioner, an offence under Section 366 and 363 of the I.P.C.has been registered against respondent No.4 Annu @ Sumar Choudhary and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.have also been initiated. It is stated that the police authorities have taken all possible steps to trace out the whereabouts of Annu @ Sumar Choudhary and they are continuing to do so. The...
Devkaran Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16376/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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...
Amit Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.14640/2012 Amit Patel & another State of M.P.& others 5.10.2012 Shri Lavkush Mishra, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents. The petitioners have sought following reliefs in this petition :- (i) That, the respondents may be directed to refund the tuition fees to petitioners received as per Annexure P/3 and P/4 exempting them from payment of Tuition Fees as per circulars of the Government issued for GREEN CARD HOLDERs.by issuing an appropriate writ/order or direction in like of nature. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also be issued in favour of the petitioneRs.in the interest of justice. The case of petitioners is that the father of petitioners had undergone Family Planning Operation and was issued a certificate dated 5.8.1988. The petitioners have got admission for B.E.CouRs.for the academic session 2004-05. Though they were exempted from payment of tuition fees, but they were compelled to make payment of tuiti...
Smt. Sugni Kahar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16433/20105. 10.2012 Shri Manot Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Though the petition is listed for admission but looking to the claim made by the petitioner and previous order passed by this Court as also the order passed by the respondents, impugned in this writ petition, the petition has to be allowed. The claim of the petitioner was that she was appointed on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband in work charged contingency establishment vide an order dated 22.12.1995 and remained in employment till 31.12.2007. However, since the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension was not being considered in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, therefore, she was required to approach this Court by way of filing W.P.No.1674/2011. Considering the facts as have come on record as also the law laid...
Jagannath Prasad Diwedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16235/20105. 10.2012 Shri I.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 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 the ...
Smt. Sarja Neelkhanth Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 Writ Petition No.16585/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate on advance notice for respondents/State. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. 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 controversy 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: "Poin...
- ‹ Prev
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- Next ›
- Last »