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.
Brajesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union Public Service Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Brajesh Kumar Sinha versus UPSC and two otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri Sankalp Kochar for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment to a cadre post in the establishment of the Central Government and, therefore, the jurisdiction to deal with the matter exclusively vests with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the petitioner should take recouRs.to the remedy available of approaching the Tribunal under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. In view of the above, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the said remedy, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
The Commissioner of the Income Tax Vs. M/S R.M.Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. 74 J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
I.T.A.No.162/2012 08.11.2012 Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in I.T.A.No.111/Ind/2012 by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, recorded a finding that the product manufactured by the respondent was detergent and not soap, so the respondent was entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. This order has been assailed by the appellant on following grounds:- 1. That the Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and to record a finding that the product in question was detergent.2. That the CIT(A) recorded a finding that the product in question was a soap and the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted by Shri Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that there was no new material before the Board to record the aforesaid finding. We...
Smt. Mushtar Sultana Vs. Mahmood Ahmed Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.17017 o08. 11.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukhtyar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.9.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C.O.S.No.275-A /03 whereby his application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC for recalling the examined respondent's witnesses for their further cross examination has been dismissed. As per averments such application was filed in the light of order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A.No.759/2009 setting aside the exparte decree passed in favour of the respondent in respect of his counter claim. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record alongwith the aforesaid order dated 18.9.2012, (Ann. P-1) as well as the order passed by the High Court said that after setting ...
Manisha Lalwani Vs. Dr. V. D. Paul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.12776 o08. 11.2012 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. At his request the case is taken out of its turn from the list of not reached cases. The petitioner's counsel submits that it is already 4.30 PM and, therefore, hearing of this petition on such count and also in the absence of the counsel of private respondents is not possible. In continuation, he submits that due to some personal reason he is not available tomorrow and prayed to adjourn the matter by fixing a date under the discretion of this court. Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 26.11.2012, as prayed. Shri Lalwani is also directed to inform in this regard to the counsel of private respondents. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Paras Jhod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.9394/12 (s) 8/11/12 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Seeking compassionate appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner's father was working in the School Education Department and he died in harness on 19/09/96 i.e.more than 16 years back. Petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 10/12/96 and as nothing has been done, this writ petition is filed after a period of 16 years not contending that petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. Records indicate that petitioner submitted the application on 10/12/96 and, thereafter, there is no document available on record showing any communication by the petitioner, acknowledgment by the respondents or even consideration of the case. The documents filed by the petitioner are only the application dated 10/12/96, the death certificate of his father dated 4/10/96, registration of the petitioner with the employmen...
Smt.Kavita Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
smt. kavita dubey versus state 1 W.P.No.18999/2012 8/11/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner claims regularization in service in accordance with certain directions already issued by this Court in W.P.No.6046/2007 - Dinesh Gupta versus State of M.P.& Others decided on 20.2.2009 and again in W.P.No.5440/2010 - Rajesh Patel versus State of M.P.& Others decided on 10.5.2010. It is seen that in the matter of regularization of employees like the petitioner, certain directions have already been issued by the Benches of this Court in the cases as referred to hereinabove. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the directions already given, examine her case and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to emphasize that this ...
The State of M.P. Vs. Gangadhar Rao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
(1) F.A. No.69/1996 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.69 / 1996 Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector, Khandwa Vs. Respondents:1. Gangadhar Ram Mandloi, S/o. Shri Dinkar Rao Mandloi, R/o. Betul.2. Vidyadhar Rao Mandloi, S/o. Shri Dinkar, R/o. Nepa Nagar, Tehsil Burhanpur, District East Nimar.3. Rajendra Rao Mandloi, S/o. Shri Dinkar Rao Mandloi, R/o. Horiganj, Khandwa, Tehsil and District East Nimar.4. Smt. Vijaya P. Dhare Khan, D/o. Shri Dinkar Rao Mandloi, W/o. Shri Prem Nath Mandloi, R/o. Village Bunglo Babul Society Race Course, Baroda (Gujarat) 5. Central Ware Housing Corporation of India, Khandwa (M.P.) ______________________________________________ Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State. (2) F.A. No.69/1996 Shri Kapil Jain, Advocate for respondents no.2, 3 and 4. ______________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 8th day of November, 2...
Sanjeev Agarwal Vs. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No 440/2012 Sanjay Agrawal Vs. M.P. Housing and infrastructure and others Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri A.P. Shroti, advocates. For the respondents no.1 and 2 : Shri R.N. Singh, Senior advocate with Shri A.J.Pawar, advocate. For the respondents No.3 and 4 : Enosh George Carlo, Advocate. ORDER (08.11.2012) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of the respondent nos. 1 and 2/ Housing Board dated 24.12.2011 whereby they have informed the petitioner that his bids for Plot No.696-B and 696-C have not been accepted.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner submitted offers pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 2 respondents/Housing Board dated 16.09.2011 whereby the respondents/Board had put up for auction plot nos. 696-B, 696-C, 696-D (corner) 696-E, 696-F (corner). The offers were opened on 07.10.20...
Ku.Reena Pinth Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.A.No.647/2010 Ku.Reena Pinth State of M.P.and others 8.11.2012 Shri Sunil Choubey, Counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for respondents/State. I.A.No14513/2012 for issuance of the ad inter writ. It is submitted by the appellant that since 1995, appellant is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer. Though her caste certificate has been found to be incorrect and she has been held to be a person not belonging to a Tribe, but in fact various documentary evidence were not considered by the High Power Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that not the respondents have initiated action against the appellant for her removal from service. That in case the appellant is removed from service, she shall suffer irreparably, so till decision of this appeal, respondents may be directed not to remove the appellant from service. Prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari who submitted that once her caste certificate has been found to be incorrect, the appellant is not enti...
Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.17790/2012 (A.K.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.08.11.2012 Heard Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on th question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that as a favourable report has been submitted by the Joint Director, Social Justice Department, Rewa to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rewa on 13.07.2011 and as the matter is pending decision in respect of release of the payment of the petitioner on that basis before the competent authority, he be permitted to pursue the matter before the said authority. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. In case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the concerned authority who has to decide the matter, the authority concerned shall take an expeditious decision in the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid l...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »