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.
Ramkrishan Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16326/2012 03.10.2012: Shri G.S.Uddey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, 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 persons 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 mentio...
Chandrahas Bhargav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 W.A.No.874/2012 Chandrahas Bhargav State of M.P.& others 3.10.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.3.2010 in W.P.No.7405/2009 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant is finally disposed of in the light of the judgment in Madhukant Yadu versus State of M.P.in O.A.No.2745/1989 decided on 24.8.1992 by the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal and the SLP preferred before the Apex Court was also dismissed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the petition and extending the benefits to the appellant, directed that the aforesaid benefits shall be extended notionally for pay-fixation from the initial date of appointment till the date of passing of the consequential order. It is submitted by the appellant that denying of monetary benefit is contrary to law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in various matters including Bhawarlal Badoniya & others ver...
Hariram Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16769 / 2012 (Hariram Gond ...Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.03-10-2012 Heard Shri R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents No.6 to 8, no action has been taken by the police authorities till date against them. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Seoni, to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the alleged respondents but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and dea...
Vlcc Health Care Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.12441/2011 03.10.2012 Shri G.N.Purohit, Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Oswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents. This matter is to be heard finally. Be listed for hearing on 29th November, 2012. Ad-interim writ: It is submitted by the petitioner that though on 30.09.2011 a prayer made by the petitioner for issuance of ad-interim writ has been declined but the petitioner has moved another application I.A.No.12087/2012 for staying the demand raised by respondents No.4, 5 and 6 in respect of healthcare services provided by the petitioner. It is submitted that except this service on other services petitioner is depositing the luxury tax to the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the State also and after hearing both the parties we direct thus:- (i) Till next date of hearing it is directed that the petitioner may furnish a bank guarantee in respect of demand of luxury tax on healthcare slimming services only as per the ass...
Smt. Kalawati Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.9074/2012 (Smt. Kalawati Kushwaha versus State of MP and otheRs.03.10.2012 Heard Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/police authorities to register a case under section 307 of the I.P.C.against the respondents No.4 and 5. It is however, apparent from a perusal of the petition that the respondents/police authorities on a complaint filed by the petitioner have already registered crime No.325/12 at Police Station, Baidhan District, Singrouli and are investigating in the matter. It is further apparent that the petitioner has already moved the police authorities by placing her grievance before them. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Singrouli for mitigation of her grievance. In case she does so along with a ...
Pyarelal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
pyarelal ahirwar versus state W.P.No.16554/2012 3/10/2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Head Master in Govt. Middle School Baisa, Sankul Kendra Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ahar, District Tikamgarh and by the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Middle School Dhilla. Transfer in question is challenged on the grounds of students- teachers ratio being disturbed due to transfer of the petitioner and further by contending that various authorities like the Incharge Minister has recommended for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner, inspite thereof no action is taken. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner it is directed that representation in this regard filed by the petitioner be considered and decided by the competent authority after taking note of recommendations made within a period of four weeks from the date ...
Madan Gopal Barsaiyan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16255/2012 03/10/2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 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 in the circu...
Smt. Sarita Chaurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Smt. Sarita Chaurasia versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16781 3. 10.2012: Smt. Upma Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner wit...
Kamaljeet Chawla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11232/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Brijlal Rokde Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Brijlal Rokde versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19192 3. 10.2012: Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate counsel for respondent/State. Petitioner by this petition claims pensionary benefit on the ground that he had worked as daily wages employee, was entitled for regularization and inspite of certain directions issued in W.P.No.11757/2004, he was not regularized and, therefore, contending that petitioner be treated to have been regularized and pensionary benefit be granted to the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari refuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that petitioner was only a daily wages employee, his services were never regularized and as a daily wages employee is not entitled to pension Shri Dharmadhikari submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. That apart, Shri Dharmadhikari invites my attention to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla v...
- ‹ Prev
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- Next ›
- Last »