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.
R.K.Singh Vs. V.K.Batham
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
R.K.Singh versus V.K.Batham Conc No.319 4. 10.2012: Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned counsel for non-applicant. On 17.2.2011, W.P.No.18396/2003 was disposed of directing the respondents to constitute a review DPC and consider the case of petitioner within a period of three months. The three months period was already over more than a year back sometime in the fiRs.week of June, 2011 and thereafter this contempt application was filed. not from the reply filed by non-applicant it is seen that vide Annexure R-1 dated 22.6.2012 i.e.after receipt of notice of this contempt application matter has been referred to the Public Service Commission for constitution a review DPC and taking action. Considering the fact that non-applicant have already initiated action, even though belatedly after more than 1 year, for the present without initiating action for contempt this application is disposed of with a direction to the non-applicant to conclude the re...
Manish Forgings Private Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.3474.12 Writ Petition No.3474 of 2012 (Manish Forgings Private LTD.versus The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur) 04/10/2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel with Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. Communication dated 12-01- 2012 and Notice Inviting Tenders dated 16-01- 2012 are being assailed vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That in pursuance to Notice Inviting Tenders dated 23-01-2011 bearing not WCRTP 20101 5 issued by West Central Railway for the supply of elastic rail clips pertaining to Research Designs and Standard Organisation (RDSO) drawing not T-3701 for the value of Rs.14,05,47,090/- , bid of the petitioner quoting the basic rate of Rs.42.05 being most competitive was accepted and an advance letter was tendered on 26-08-2011. Clause 16 of the advance acceptance letter providing for security deposit for safety items stipulated t...
Smt. Samita Dwivedi Vs. Shri S.K.Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Smt. Somita Dwivedi versus Shri S.K.Tripathi Conc No.436 4. 10.2012: Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Seeking initiation of contempt action against non-applicant this contempt application was filed on 20.4.2012. On 7.5.2010, notice was issued to non-applicant, the said notice has been returned unserved with an endorsement that the non-applicant is not available in the address given. Even though the matter is pending since 2010, neither the cause-title is amended, not process-fee is paid on correct address of the non-applicant, as a result, till date for more than two years notice have not been issued to the non-applicant and during this period, the authority who implement the order would have been changed. Under such circumstances it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt. Instead liberty is granted to the applicant to seek enforcement of the order passed by this Court. With the aforesaid the contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra M...
Dr. (Smt.) Manjusha Goyal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.1099/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the return filed by the respondent No.3 has recently been received by him and, therefore, he would like to file the rejoinder. 15 days' time is prayed for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that his return in the present case be treated as rejoinder in the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3. Prayer accepted. List the petition along with W.P.No.18633/2010 in the week commencing 26.11.2010. Interim relief to continue till the next date of listing. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Devki Nandan Tiwari Vs. Shri Manish Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Conc. No.1919/2011 4/10/12 Shri D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondents have filed a status report indicating the compliance made and reinstatement of the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though petitioners have been reinstated, salary and other monetary benefits accruing to them in accordance with the judgment of this Court, have not been paid. As the petitioners were compulsorily retired it is possible that certain amounts have been paid to them while settling their post retiral dues. That being so respondents are not required to settle the monetary benefits after taking note of the amount already paid to each of the petitioner. As the aforesaid exercise may take some time, respondents are granted six months time for complying with the direction for payment of monetary benefits to t...
M/S Centauto Automotives Private Limited Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Contempt Case No.1096/2010 M/s Centauto Automotives Private Limited & Another versus Union Bank of India and otheRs.04.10.2012. Shri Satish Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhijit C. Thakur, counsel for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that an interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2009 has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Applicant Company had taken certain loan from Union Bank of India and due to non-payment of loan, proceedings were initiated under section 13, of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to Act of 2002).and the property of the applicant/company was proposed to be auctioned. On the ground that the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur is on leave upto 1.1.2010 and if urgent hearing of the said application is not granted, the property would be auctioned, applicant filed Writ Petition ...
Smt. A.R. Manu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Smt. A.R.Manu / R.L.Manu versus State of MP and otheRs.Writ Petition Nos.11869/2012(S) & 13162/2012(S).04.10.2012. Shri P.N.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the respondents. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. Petitioner Smt. A.R.Manu, in W.P.No.11869/2012(S) is working as an ANM in Government District Hospital, Raisen and vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, she has been transferred from Raisen to District Harda and challenging the transfer order she has approached this Court. Similarly, petitioner Shri R.L.Manu, in W.P.No.13162/2012(S).is working as a Non-Medical Assistant in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Raisen and vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, he has also been transferred to District Harda and he has challenged the same on various grounds. Records indicate that earlier also when both the petitioners were transferred, they approached this Court in various writ petitions and at that point of time whenever th...
B.K.Agnihotri Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.969/2005 04.10.2012 Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Harmeet Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.2 and 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties for some time it transpires that the review DPC held for consideration of the claim for promotion of degree holder Sub Engineers had not taken into consideration, the year wise vacancies available in the said quota and has considered the vacancies as in the year 1998. This particular aspect has specifically been pleaded in the writ petition and a document to indicate that such improper procedure was followed by the review DPC has also been placed on record. This aspect is not disputed in the return by the respondents No.2 and 3. The law is well settled. On every such consideration the vacancy as per the quota prescribed are to be calculated year-wise and t...
Shri Kumar Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.NO.16725/2012 04-10-2012 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, on advance notice for the respondents. The petitioner is working as Veterinary Field Officer and by the impugned order dated 11-07-2012, the petitioner was transferred from Veterinary Hospital Dindori to Veterinary Hospital , Beohari in District Seoni. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that the transfer is because of malafides of respondent no.4 and is contrary to the transfer policy, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.11675/2012 and a Bench of this court on 08-08-2012 after hearing Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned counsel for the State observed that the impugned order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provisions not the same suffers from the vice of malafide. It is therefore, clear that in the earlier writ petition 2 this court ...
Mukesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
MA.. No.460/1998 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava M.A. No.460/1998 .....APPELLANTS 1 Mukesh Kumar s/o Komalchand Defendants 2. Pushpendra Kumar s/o Prakash Chand 3. Jitendra Kumar s/o Bhagchand All businessman and cultivator by occupation and residents of village Bakal, Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur -Versus- ....RESPONDENT: Vijay Bahadur Singh s/o Ujyar Plaintiff Singh, Cultivator, R/o village Salaiya Tahsil Sihora District Jabalpur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Ojha, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent though served. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER {04.10.2012} This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC has been preferred by the defendants/appellants against the order dated 6.11.1997 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Judicial Case No.14/1986 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- Next ›
- Last »