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.
Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has reti...
Banwarilal Vishvakarma Vs. Shri Arun Kochar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Con.C.No.1227/12 4/10/12 Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. On 2nd April, 2012 in W.P.No.4932/12 (s).the petition was disposed of on the very fiRs.day without notice to the parties concerned by taking note of the fact that a representation is pending and, therefore, after noting the submission, the Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter simply directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation within a period of three months. Now, from the reply filed by the respondents, it is seen that by a detailed speaking order, representation has been rejected on 18/06/12 and various reasons have been given therein for rejecting the representation. As the only direction given in the writ petition was to consider and decide the representation and as the same is rejected as indicated hereinabove, not no further action is required to be taken in the matter. Accordingly, respondents ...
Phoolmati Singh Patel Vs. Nathulal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
(1) M.A. No.1549/2011 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.1549 / 2011 Appellant : Phoolmati Singh Patel, D/o Late Plaintiff Ramkishore Singh, W/o Rampratap Singh, R/o Village Badarkha Post Bathiya, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (M.P.) Versus Respondents :1. Nathulal Singh Defendants S/o Late Shri Rammilan Singh Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Hinouti Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (M.P.) 2. Bharat Prasad Singh S/o Late Shri Rammilan Singh Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Hinouti Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (M.P.) 3. Sant Prasad Singh S/o Late Shri Rammilan Singh Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Hinouti Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (M.P.) 4. Laxman Prasad Singh S/o Late Shri Rammilan Singh Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Hinouti Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna (M.P.) 5. Vidyadevi @ Kalli D/o Late Shri Rammilan Singh W/o Late Dinesh Singh, Village Bamhour...
Shyamacharan Upadhyay Vs. Shri Sharad Audichya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Conc.R.No.7/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.for the applicant. Contemner Sharad Audichya with Shri S.K.Pathak, Advocate present. Contemner and his counsel both are heard on framing of charge. After hearing the counsel of contemner, prima facie a case of criminal contempt is made out against the contemner. Charge is separately framed. The reply of contemner is recorded. The matter requires recording of the evidence. Considering the facts of the case, it would be appropriate, if the evidence is recoded by the District Judge, Satna. Accordingly, District Judge, Satna is directed to record the evidence in the case on the charge and to submit his report before this Court within a period of four months from the date fixed today in this regard. The contemner to appear before the District Judge, Satna on 5th November, 2012, for which date no further notice shall be required to him. Relevant record be sent to the District Judge, Satna for recording evidence in the matter. (Krishn Kum...
Bindheswari Prasad Shukla Vs. M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Bindeshwari Prasad Shukla versus MP Urja Vikas Nigam, Bhopal & OtheRs.04.10.2012. Shri Harish Agnihotri for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in the respondents establishment since 6.4.1988 and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of thi...
M/S Khimji Kunverji and Company Vs. Secretary Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 W.P.No.2969/2011 M/s Khimji Kunverji & Company Union of India & others 4.10.2012 Shri Sapan Usrethe, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 1. To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.4 to make payment of interest as per letter (Annexure P-3).2. The respondent No.2 may be directed to collect interest from respondent no.4 and pay it to petitioner as provided in section 142(2D) of Income Tax Act.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be granted.4. Cost of the petition. Petitioner had performed special audit work of respondent No.4 of which a bill was raised on 21.9.1995 for Rs.1,77,000/-. Aforesaid bill was not paid. As per oder passed by the Income Tax Department, the petitioner was entitled for payment of fee amounting to Rs.1,77,000/-. The respondent No.4 had challenged the af...
Vishnu Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.11583 OF 200.(s) Shri Vishnu Prasad Mishra Petitioner versus State of M. P. and others Respondents Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MeNo................................................................................................... Shri K. N. Pethia for the petitioner. Shri S. S. Bisen for the respondent. ................................................................................................ ORDER (4/10/2012) Challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar as contained in Annexure P-12 dated 30/12/06 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner as a measure of punishment after conducting a departmental enquiry in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1966'), petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner was working as a Police C...
Dr. A.G. Nema Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.2421/2012 04.10.2012 Shri P.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. Heard on I.A.No.13038/2012, an application for grant of interim relief in light of the subsequent events. The petition has been filed seeking the direction for implementation of the Scheme of extension of age of superannuation formulated by the UGC. Similar matters are pending consideration before this Court. In the present writ petition, on earlier occasion, recording the fact that since the petitioner has retired, the interim relief claimed by the petitioner was rejected on 16.2.2012. However, this has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in some what similar circumstances in other writ petition, this Court has passed an interim order on 24.9.2012 making application of the interim protection granted in other cases applicable. This being so, it is po...
Kallu and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1508 OF 199.Kallu & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.C.Datt, Sr. Advocate with P. Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. Shri J.A.Shah, Advocate for the complainant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of October, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3/12/1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai in ST No.69/1986, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of Conviction Sentence Fine Default the accused U/S (IPC) (Rs.) sentence All 307/149 3 years' RI 500/- 3 months' SI appellants 506(II) 6 months' RI Appellant6. months' RI No.10, 12...
M.P.Hathkargha Bunkar Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Jabalpur Vs. Smt. Pramlat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 W.P.No.186/2010 W.P.NO.186/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. Order dated 12.11.2009, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 05.12.2008, affirmed the claim of Jagdish Prasad (since deceased) of salary for the period from 14.9.98 to 13.12.98 in lieu of Fifth Pay Commission and other dues. Said Jagdish Prasad was on deputation with the petitioner Federation as its Managing Director from 25.5.96 to 28.12.98. That being aggrieved of non- payment of leave pay for the period from 14.9.98 to 13.12.98, arrears of fifth pay commission and not deposit in General Provident Fund, he raise dispute under Section 64 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, before Registra...
- ‹ Prev
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- Next ›
- Last »