Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Arjun Meghani Vs. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Writ Petition No :21183. 2012 Arjun Meghani versus Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation & Anr. 18.12.2012. Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a LDC in the Municipal Corporation at Bhopal. A charge-sheet was issued to him and on the basis of the finding recorded in the inquiry vide order- dated 15.2.2010 Annexure P/1 and 24.2.2009 Annexure P/2, punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid imposition of punishment, petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending before the Appeals Committee of the Corporation. Contending that the appeal has not been decided though a period of more than 2 years have passed, this writ petition is filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal - respondent No.1 is directed to place the appeal of the petitioner alongwith certified copy of this order before the Appeals Com...
Jai Ram Balkishan Parte Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.4185/2012 18.12.2012: Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Khandwa; whereby Sarpanch/ Secretary Gram Panchayat, Harsood, District Khandwa being directed to take action for winding up the entire Gram Panchayat because of the inundation of the village under Indra Sagar Pariyojna. Petitioner is the Panchayat Secretary appointed to Gram Panchayat which is being effected by the impugned order dated 20.2.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though direction has been issued for winding up of the panchayat offices no decision has been by the State Government for absorption of the petitioner who is regularly appointed as Panchayat Karmi/ Sachiv. It is urged that in similar matter i.e.W.P.No.8153/2007 (Maniram Kori and another versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.this Court has directed th...
Bhaiyalal Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.20892/2012 (Bhaiyalal Soni versus State of M.P.& ors.) 18.12.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 02.11.2012, by which the petitioner's application seeking compensation in view of the circular of the State Government dated 02.02.2011 has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Homeguard and in view of the circular of the State Government dated 02.02.2011, he is entitled for compensation on receiving grievous injury while on duty inspite of which the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation made by him on having suffered a fracture on the arm, while on duty. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner himself, specifically Annexure P-4 and P-5, it is clear that the petitioner has suffered a fracture in the arm and that the said injury...
Sukhanandan Bhujawa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2378/2009 Sukhanandan Bhujawa VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K.Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 18th day of December, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned third Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No.241/2008, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 307 of IPC and sentenced for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 10.10.2008, at about 8 p.m. in the evening, the vic...
M/S Vrijlal Manilal and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.5543/2010) M/s. Vrijlal Manilal and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate Counsel for respondent Shri J.K. Pillai, Advocate O R D E R (18/12/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Order passed in this Writ Petition shall govern the disposal of Writ Petition Nos.11347/2009 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. J.P. Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., 11348/2009 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Vrijlal Manilal & Co., 11349/2009 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. D.C. Rathore and sons, 11350/2009 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Co., 11368/2009 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. J.P. Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd. a...
Ram Narayan Tiwari Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vaish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Conc Case No.589/2012 Ram Narayan Tiwari versus Rajneesh Vaish and otheRs.18.12.2012. Shri Rajkumar Tripathi for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after notices have been issued by this Court and on the basis of the coercive steps taken on the last date of hearing i.e 29.11.2012, the Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as PPO) has been issued and it is not for the Treasury Officer respondent No.6, to release payment to the applicant in pursuance to the PPO issued. Even though bailable warrants have been issued to respondent No.6, but he has not appeared till now. Considering the fact that PPO has already been issued and the amount to be disbursed to the applicant, respondent No.6 the Treasury Officer, District Sidhi is directed to ensure that actual monetary benefits accruing to the applicant and payment in pursuance to the PPO is released to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Fai...
Bhaiyaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.21361/2012 (Bhaiya Ram versus State of MP and otheRs.18.12.2012 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper filed by him for the purpose of contesting the election for the post of Member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kareli District, Narsinghpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's nomination has been rejected only on the ground that he drawing pension which is not a ground prescribed under the law for rejecting the nomination, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to contest the election. It is pointed out by the learned Dy A.G.appearing for the State/respondents that the elections have already been notified on 19-11-2012 and, therefore, no cause for interference in the ...
Rameshwar Prasad Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.12590/2011 18/12/2012 Shri O.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.3 by which appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Challenging the same order dated 27.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-P4, various writ petitions were filed before this Court and one such writ petition was filed by one Shri Gauri Shankar Baiga being W.P.No.14652/2011(s) and vide order dated 13.9.2012, a Bench of this Court has quashed the impugned order and directed for reinstatement of the similarly situated employee with back-wages. Keeping in view the aforesaid order and the reasons indicated therein and finding the petitioner to be similarly situated, for the reasons and consideration already made by this Court in W.P.No.14652/2011(s) on 13.9.2012, this writ petition is also allowed. The order impugned Annexure-P4 dated 27.11.2010 is quashed a...
Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.5237/2012(O) 18.12.2012 Shri Anupam Lal Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the State. This matter is to be heard finally. As today other matters are also listed for hearing so it is not possible to hear this matter finally. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that the order of superannuation of petitioner No.1 who is due to be retired on 31.12.2012, will not be given effect to, as similar directions have been issued in some other cases, and to maintain the principle of parity, the aforesaid order has been passed. Be listed for hearing on 17.01.2013. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
M/S Punjab Stores Vs. the Divisional Deputy
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
W.P.No.20584/2012 18.12.2012 Shri Mukesh Agarwal, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy.G.A.He prays for a short time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 16.1.2013. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application for settlement under section 124-B of the M.P.Value Added Tax Act, 2002 is pending before the respondents for settlement of the dues, but the respondent no.1 is proceeding ahead in the penalty proceedings, so till the decision of settlement application filed by the petitioner, penalty proceedings may be stayed. Prayer is opposed by Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel for the State. However, it is directed that the respondent no.1 shall not pass any final order in the penalty proceedings for the block period 24.12.2007 to 25.10.2010 and the entry tax for period 1.4.2010 to 25.10.2010, till next date of hearing. C.C., as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »