Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
ici India Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.8595/2012 21.11.2012 Shri Sandesh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. This petition is directed against an order-dated 31/1/2012 by which Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur in Case No.84/R/2011-(State) dismissed the revision on the ground of delay of 1 year, 8 months and 26 days. The grounds stated in the application seeking condonation of delay were not found favour by the revisional authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted- 1. That for filing a revision, there was a limitation period of one year from the date of the order, but the revisional authority erred in not considering the relevant provision.2. That the order was served on the counsel and not to the assessee. The clerk of the counsel had wrongly tagged the copy of the order in a disposed of file, so it could not be traced out within the period of limitation and immediately when the same was traced, the revision was ...
Bhuralal Jhariya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1....MCC.No.1433 of 05 Bhuralal Jharia State of M.P.21.11.2012 Shri R.B.Parashar, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon present in Court. He was asked whether he is ready to give effect to the order passed by the Labour Court in case No.22/98/IDR dated 28.4.2001 by which the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back wages. It is submitted by him that he has issued an order of engagement of respondent on daily wages but is having no powers to reinstate the respondent. It is also submitted by him that the aforesaid order can be given effect to by the Collector, Seoni and he has no powers in this regard. This application is filed seeking restoration of W.P.5999/05 which was disposed of finally with a direction to the petitioner to avail remedy of execution of the order passed by the Labour Court. We find that there is no such powers for execution of the order passed by the Labour Court and the aforesaid order can be enforced at the relevant time by is...
Rajendra Kumar Namdeo Vs. Neeraj Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.A.No.341/2012 21.11.2012 Shri S.P.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P.S.Baghel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Atulanand Awasthy with Shri Pranay Verma, Advocates for respondent nos.1 and 2. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are not represented despite service of notice on them. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of maintainability of this appeal. This appeal is directed against an order-dated 23/1/12 passed in R.P.No.571/2011, by which the order-dated 5/9/2011 passed in W.P.No.16343/2005 was modified and the relief granted in the writ petition was recalled. The office has raised an objection that against such an order by which review petition was allowed, no writ appeal shall lie. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the earlier writ petition was decided in favour of the appellant granting relief in the matter and such order has been recalled by an order passed in R.P.No.571/2011 by the writ Court that was itself an order which was passed exercising th...
Nav Jyoti GramIn Vikas Samiti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.18929/2012 (Nav Jyoti Gramin Vikas Samiti versus State of MP and otheRs.21.11.2012 Heard Shri S.S.Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S Bisen, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent no 3 is not releasing the payment to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him in preparing a detail project report which has been accepted. It is submitted that the aforesaid payment is not being released inspite of the fact that the amount has been sanctioned and sent to the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.3 by letter dated 04.06.2010, a copy of which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P-11. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to release the pending payment of the petitioner which has also been approved. The lea...
Smt. Sushma Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.9034/ 2012 (Smt. Sushma Thakur..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.21-11-2012 Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention and abduction oif her daughter by respondents No.5 and 6 who are the grant mother and uncle of the minot girl, Ku. Ashi, respondent No.4. On notice being issued, the police authorities have filed a report after conducting an enquiry in the matter and stated that the petitioner was legally married wife of one Shri Ravi Thakur and the respondent No.4 is the daughter of the petitioner, who is aged about 6 yeaRs.It is stated that on account of certain matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband the petitioner left the house after Shri Ravi Thakur committed suicide leaving minot girl, respondent No.4, Ku. Ashi with the respondents...
Ramai Singh Vs. Bharamal Dairy Farm
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 M.A. 1214/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA M.A. No.1214/2003 .........Appellant: Ramai Singh, S/o Swaroop Singh, R/o Barkhera, PIO Guraia, P.S. Shahpura, Tahsil Dindori, District Mandla, Present Address Pappu Yadav Dairy and Plot Kewlari, P.S. Panagar, Jabalpur. Versus .......Respondent: Bharamal Dairy Farm, Prop. Amrit Lal Makhija, S/o Bharamal Makhija, R/o 701, Chhoti Omti, P.S. Belbagh, Jabalpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri R.K. Shukla, Advocate Respondent by - Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Ku. Surabhi Ahirkar, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (21/11/2012) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act in Case No.60/98/not Fatal this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, the WC Act) ...
Rajoo @ Ramakant and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 199.Rajoo alias Ramakant & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K.P. Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of November, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14/12/1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora Camp Katni in ST No.85/1989, whereby the appellant No.1 was convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and the appellants No.2 and 3 were convicted for commission of offence under Section 376/34 of IPC and each of them was sentenced with 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine,...
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
ashok kumar versus state of m.p.1 W.P.No.4287/2011 21/11/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in not granting regularization to the petitioner and denying to the petitioner the appropriate pay scale on the post of Telephone Operator. Even though petition is pending since 2011, respondents have not filed any reply. By filing I.A.No.11704/2012 learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner is working since 1998 and even after rejection of his claim for regularization many persons similarly situated have been appointed and they have been granted minimum of the scale of the post in which they are working vide Annexures PI-1, PI-2, PI-3, PI-4 and PI-5. As similar benefit is denied to the petitioner, the petitioner seeks for the same benefit which has been granted to various similarly situated employees by virtue of ...
Dolly Amfal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.4901/2012 (Dolly Amfal versus State of M.P.and otheRs.21.11.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.V.Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the police authorities are not taking action against the respondent No.4 inspite of the complaint filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.4 has filed a return. From a perusal of the return it appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 has obtained a decree from the competent court against the petitioner's husband and therefore, there is some civil dispute between the parties. In the circumstances, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the appropriate remedy of the petit...
Smt. Shanti Bavaria Vs. Arun Kochar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Conc. No.08/2012 21/11/2012 Shri Paras Nath Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent. It is submitted by Shri Das that the respondent has not been transferred and he has been replaced by Shri C.K.Meshram as CMO of Nagar Palika Parishad Seoni, District Seoni, so he may be permitted to file a representation to Shri C.K.Meshram for compliance of the order dated 28/07/2011 passed in Writ Petition No.11677/2011. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to file a representation to the present Chief Municipal Officer for compliance of the order dated 28/07/2011. Needless to say that if any such representation is filed, the present Chief Municipal Officer shall hear and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of one month as directed in the order dated 28/07/2012 passed in Writ Petition No.11677/2011 (supra).With the aforesaid liberty, this Contempt Petition is finally disposed of. No order as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »