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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.P. Bhargava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.836/2012 03/10/2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for appellant-State. Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate for the respondents. I.A.No.9121/2012 for stay. It is submitted by the appellant that till the decision of this appeal, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be stayed. In reply to it, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the writ petition, respondents are entitled to get the pay @ Rs.4125/- w.e.f.01/01/1996. It is further submitted that sofar as pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- is concerned, there is no dispute in the matter that respondent is entitled for the same pay scale w.e.f.01/01/1996. In reply to it, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing release all the retiral dues to the respondent @ Rs.4125/- may be stayed. As the controveRs.is in respect of payment of pay @ Rs.4125/- w.e.f.01/01/1996 is in question in thi...
G.P.Noriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15676/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. 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 mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2...
M.P.Road Development Corporation 16-a Arera Hills Jail Road Bhopal Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P No.13892/2012 (MP Road Development Corporation versus M/s Jabalpur Corridor (India) LTD.03.10.2012 Shri A.V.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manot Menot and Shri Sateyendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the 10th Additional Disrict Judge, Bhopal in Arbitration Case No.45/12. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that pursuant to the dispute between the parties, the arbitration proceedings were taken up under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act, 1996).In the meanwhile, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Rural Road Development Authority and another versus L.G.Choudhary Engineers and Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495.the petitioner moved an application before the Arbitrator for returning the proceedings for being placed before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted unde...
Pritam Kaur Balla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11228/2012 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...
Amitabh Shukla Vs. Nath Narayan Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR MCrC No.432/2011 Amitabh Shukla, son of Late Gulab Shukla, aged about 50 years, Resident of Village Suhagi, Police Station Suhagi, Tahsil Tyonthar, Distt. Rewa Petitioner vs. (1) Nath Narayan Mishra, aged about 58 years, Son of Mahaveer Prasad Mishra, R/o Railway Quarter No.253/19, Subhash Colony, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (2) State of M.P, through District Magistrate, Jabalpur Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri H.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.S. Patel, Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Alok Vagrecha, Advocates for respondent no.1. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, P.L. for respondent no.2-State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing :25. 9.12 Date of Order :3. 10.12 ORDER This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Crim...
M/S R.N.A. Ores and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P.Poorva Kshatriya Vidyut ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16735/2012 (M/s R.N.A Ores & Minerals versus MPPKVVCL & Ors.) 03.10.2012 Heard Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Manot Kushwaha for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 17.9.2012 and 21.9.2012 by which the electricity supplied to the petitioner's premises has been disconnected on account of not payment of electricity dues. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents initially issued a bill of Rs.42,24,002/- on 19.1.2010 being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed a petition which is registered as W.P No.1268/2010 and in which there in an interim order passed in favour of the petitioner on 2.3.2010 subject to his deposit of Rs.15 Lakhs. It is submitted that subsequently the respondents again issued demand notices on the basis of certain false panchanama dated 5.3.2010 and 3.4.2010 for a sum of Rs.20,68,135/-. Against which the...
Kishori Lal Davre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16322/2012 03.10.2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, 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 ...
Shri Ram Manohar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.18937/2006 (Shri Ram Manohar Dubey....Vs....State of M.P.& ors.) 03-10-2012 Heard Shri Manot Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 22-12-2004 passed by the licensing authority, Chhatarpur and the order dated 17-7-2006 passed by the appellate authority by which the arms licence granted to the petitioner has been suspended on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the petition the criminal case has been resolved and has come to an end and, therefore, under the changed circumstances the impugned orders of suspension of petitioner's arms licence be quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the subsequent events the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approa...
Chironji Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15677/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, 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 circular da...
Umesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 W.A.No.879/2012 Umesh Kumar Shrivastava State of M.P.& others 3.10.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, Counsel for appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7.12.2009 in W.P.No.11852/2009 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants 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 appellants 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 & ot...
- ‹ Prev
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- Next ›
- Last »