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 Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21112/2012 17.12.2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt.Adv.for the State. Petitioner claims to be a daily wages employee working on the post of Road Roller Helper in the department since 1989. It is a case of the petitioner that as he has been working for more than 10 years he is entitled to be regularized in accordance to the policies and Circulars of the State Government. Considering the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 and the circulars issued in pursuance to the same, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policies formulated as indicated herein above and decide it within the period of three months. In case claim of the petitioner has already been taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee, action on the report be undertaken...
Patiraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No :21065. 2012 Patiraj Singh and others versus State of MP and others 17.12.2012. Shri Dharmendra Soni for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Soni, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that a representation of the petitioners Annexure P/9 is pending before respondent Nos.3 and 4, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioneRs.respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners as indicated by them, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If required, petitioners are granted liberty to submit additional grounds with documents in support of their representation. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Gyanendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.18076 / 2012 (Gyanendra Prasad Dwivedi ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.17-12-2012 Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sharda Dubey, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-9-2012 passed by the respondent No.1, Collector, Singrauli directing registration of an F.I.R.against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before issuing any such direction and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed with a direction to the Collector, Singrauli to re-examine the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, per contra, submits that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in the year 2008 wherein he was found to have committed irregularities but no further decision had been taken on the enquiry report and, therefore, the respondent...
Smt. Kamini Pandole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
1 smt. kamni pandole versus state W.P.No.18065/2012 17.12.2012: Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Petitioner is working in the respondents establishment as a Manager on contract basis in a scheme being implemented popularly known as "MANREGA". Petitioner was transferred from Bhainsdehi to Janpad Panchayat, Betul vide order dated 12.7.2012. Petitioner joined at Betul on 13.7.2012. Grievance of the petitioner is that within a period of two months the order of transfer is cancelled and petitioner is being sent back to his original place of posting at Janpad Panchayat Bhainsdehi. Inter alia contending that executed order of transfer has been canceled without indicating any reason, the same is unsustainable, this writ petition is filed. On notice being issued respondents have filed the return and from the return filed by respondent No.5 it is see...
Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.17808 / 2012 (Raj Bahadur Singh Dwivedi ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.17-12-2012 Shri Kamal Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sharda Dubey, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-9-2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Collector, Singrauli directing registration of an F.I.R.against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before issuing any such direction and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed with a direction to the Collector, Singrauli to re-examine the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, per contra, submits that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in the year 2008 wherein he was found to have committed irregularities but no further decision had been taken on the enquiry report and, therefore, the res...
Rajkumar Arya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.19998 / 2012 (Rajkumar Arya..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.17-12-2012 Shri R.B.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the proceedings taken up by the petitioner before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal against the order of supersession of the Society is not being decided on account of absence of a member as a result of which the petitioner is being treated to have been disqualified for participating in the elections which have been notified and published in the newspaper, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-11 alongwith the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the circumstances the petitioner has no other alternative remedy but to approach this Court and obtain orders permitting him to participate in the elections. The learned Go...
Ku. Prabhjeet Kaur Vs. Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21162/2012 (Ku. Prabhjeet Kaur & ORS.versus Municipal Corpn. & ors.) 17.12.2012 Heard Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Anuj Agrawal for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent/ Corporation in issuing two demand notices dated 06.06.2011 and the proposed auction proceedings, which are to be held by them as published in daily Newspaper Dainik Bhasker dated 11.12.2012 in respect of House Nos.889, 890 and 920 situated in Mahanadda, Gupteshwar ward, Nagpur Road, Jabalpur. It is submitted by the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have deposited the entire tax relating to the aforesaid houses in the year 2011-12 on the basis of their self assessment made in accordance with law, in spite of which the respondent are proposing to auction the property of the petitioneRs.It submitted that the petitioners have filed objections and h...
Rajendra Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
1 M.Cr.C.No.14328/12 17.12.2012. Shri Deependra Mishra, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for State. Heard on IA No.26414/12, an application for taking documents on record. The documents sought to be filed may be helpful in deciding this petition ,hence by allowing the aforesaid IA the documents are taken on record. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for parties. This petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed to transfer Sessions Trial No.478/11 (State of M.P.versus Karan and otheRs.pending before the Sessions Judge, Sagar to any other Court out of District-Sagar. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner no.3 prosecutrix is a minot girl of 17 years of age . A case under Section 363,366,368, 376, 366-A, 506-B and 120-B of IPC is pending before Sessions Court, Sagar in which petitioner no.3 is the prosecutrix and petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents and respondents/accused persons are in habit of threatening...
Jagdish Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
1 Jagdish prasad Tiwari versus state W.P.No.21051/12 17.12.2012: Shri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Sahayak Adhyapak and on the ground that certain manipulation has been done in the mark sheet, a complaint has been received and based on the complaint, petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry. Inter alia contending that the allegations leveled are not correct, petitioner seeks interference and quashment of suspension. Grounds raised in this writ petition for interfering with the order of suspension are the merits of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner wants this Court to inquire into the allegations made against him, conduct an enquiry, appreciate the evidence and exonerate the petitioner. I am afraid, the aforesaid function cannot be discharged by a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This function i...
Ashok Kumar Gopi Chand Vs. Esi. Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
M.A. 1085/2003 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava M.A. No.1085/2003 APPELLANT Ashok Kumar Gopichand through its Partner Gandhi Ganj, Katni Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Employees State Insurance Corporation through its Regional Director, Panchdeep Bhawan, Nanda Nagar, Indore 2. Employees State Insurance Court, Labour Court, Jabalpur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Anubhav Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER {17-12-2012 } This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the ESI Act.) has been filed by the employer against the order dated 5.3.2003 passed by the ESI Court in Case No.3/95/ESI whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.8,978.40 towards the ESI contribution.2. The contention of learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »