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.
Dilli Bai Tiwari Vs. Shri A.K. Joshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Cont. Case No :1497. 2010 Dilli Bai Tiwari versus Shri A.K.Joshi and another. 21.12.2012. Shri Ranjeet Singh for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Keeping in view the fact that the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Chief Engineer vide order-dated 26.3.2012 Annexure R/1, mainly on the ground that the employee concerned was working in the work-charged and contingency paid establishment and under the policy dependents of such an employee is not entitled to compassionate appointment, no further action is required to be taken in the matter of contempt. In case applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the claim is considered and rejected, liberty is granted to the applicant to challenge the impugned order Annexure R/1 afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. Certified copy as per...
Rajesh Miglani Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
R.P.No.517/2009 (Rajesh Miglani versus State of MP and otheRs.21.12.2012 Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri Komal Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Heard. The learned counsel for the parties point out that the Division Bench of this court has ultimately disposed of W.P.No.15166/07 on 21st of July, 2011 with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the application for regular permit filed by the applicant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the application of the parties for regular permit can not be considered and therefore, the present application for review be disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned i.e.the State Transport Authority, respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application filed by the applicant as well as the respondent No.5 for grant of regular permit on Chhindwa...
Santwana Krishna Sinha Vs. Coal India Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.20626/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that leave period of the petitioner outstanding to his credit has not yet been decided despite the fact that the petitioner has retired on 31.1.2012. It is contended that as per the statutory provisions, even if the petitioner is punished or dismissed, the leave period cannot be forfeited and the encashment of the same is permissible. The representation to this effect has been made, but since the same is not decided, the petitioner has approached this Court. A perusal of the representation annexed with the writ petition indicates that the detailed provisions have not been mentioned by the petitioner as to how he would be entitled to get the encashment of the E.L.and H.P.L.This being so, the petitioner is granted a liberty to make an appropriate representation detailing all the provisions as per the Rules seeking encashment of the leave credited in his acc...
Dr. U.S.Gutam Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21433.12 Writ Petition No.21433 of 2012 (Dr.U.S. Gautam v. Union of India and three otheRs.21/12/2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned senior counsel along with Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents on advance notice. Heard. Order dated 14- 12-2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order Misc. Application No.1078/2012 filed in Original Application No.169/2012 for the direction to respondent to process the application for some of the posts advertised vide advertisement No.03/2012 has been rejected. The Original Application is for a direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Director General (Agriculture Extension) and Zonal Project Director, Zonal Project Directorate by forwarding his application to the Agriculture Service ...
Ramsewak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Criminal Appeal No.729/2010 21/12/2012 Ms.Manju Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, GA for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.18542/12, which is the second application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. The fiRs.application of appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25/04/11. Appellant has been convicted by Trial Court under sections 326, 324 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 5 years & fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail since 27/05/2009 and already suffered the jail sentence of 3 years and 7 months which is half of the jail sentence awarded to him. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence she prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned c...
Afroz Jahan Vs. Musheer Mohd. Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21437/2012 02/01/2013 Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Aiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is defendant in a suit filed by plaintiff/ Respondent Musheer Mohd. Khan. Plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 filed a suit in question bearing Civil Suit No.576-A/08 for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the suit property bearing KhaSr.No.86/1/2 consisting 2.11 Acres against the present petitioner and various other defendants. It is the case of the petitioner that she was unaware of the aforesaid suit being filed and it was only in July, 2010 that she came to knot that someone has appeared by impersonation before the Court and led defense and filed a compromise application. After coming to knot all these facts, petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C before the court and sought permission to withdraw all the proceedings held prior to 28.7.2010 and grant her liberty to file fresh written statement. By the impugned order dated 17.10.2012, the learned court ...
Smt.Seventa Bai Bhagat Vs. Praveen Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
1 R.P. No. 632/2009 21.12.2012 Shri Sidharth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Review of order dated 28.6.2008 passed in M.A. No. 1857/2007 is being sought vide this petition. M.A. No. 1857/2007 was directed against the award dated 22.3.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Waraseoni, district Balaghat in Claim Case No. 69/2006; wherein the Tribunal in lieu of death of Vijay Bhagat, aged 24, unmarried son of the petitioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/. On 28.6.2008 the appeal was disposed of in the following terMs.In couRs. of hearing the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the amount awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced to Rs.1,65,000/. The enhanced differential sum shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the ...
Ram Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.A.No.1448/2012 Ram Prasad Chaturvedi State of M.P.& others 21.12.2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, counsel for appellant. Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.12.2012 in W.P.No.15123/2012, by which prayer of petitioner for ad- interim writ was declined. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that in similar circumstances in the matter of Ram Sajeevan Tiwari in W.P.No.19445/2012 he was granted ad- interim writ on 30.11.2012, but the appellant has been declined. It is submitted that on the principle of parity appellant was entitled for ad-interim writ, but the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the prayer of appellant. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents submitted that Ram Sajeevan Tiwari was due to retire on 30.11.2012 and when his matter was heard on 30.11.2012, he was in service, so the learned Single Judge rightly directed in W.P.No.19445/2012 that he be not retired from the service, wh...
Amar Chand Verma Vs. Shri Ghanshyam Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Cont. Case No :2025. 2011 Amar Chand Verma versus Shri Ghanshyam Soni and another. 21.12.2012. Shri O.S.Pandey for the applicant. Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate, with Shri Swapnil Singh for non-applicant No.1. In view of the order passed by the non-applicants rejecting the claim of the applicant vide order-dated 3.9.2012, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting after rejection of the representation, he is granted liberty to assail the action afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, the non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhu G.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.A.No.1421/2012 State of M.P.& others Madhu G. 21.12.2012 Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for appellants. Shri Kailash Kushwaha, counsel for respondent. I.A.No.15849/2012 for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 25.7.2012 in W.P.No.10016/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent seeking minimum pay scale of the post against which the respondent is working was allowed in the light of the directions issued in other writ petition bearing W.P.No.560/2009(S) dated 2.12.2011. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the respondent being a daily wager was not entitled for minimum pay scale for regular post and the learned Single Judge erred in directing so. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the matter was decided in the light of an earlier order passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.560/2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »