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.
Ashish Kumar Panda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.19877/2012 10.12.2012 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authority of respondent No.3 Tahsildar to submit the report to draw final decree to the Executing Court following the basic principle of law to settle the purchasers in the portion of their occupation. In the couRs.of arguments on admission in response of some query of the court based on Section 44 and Section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code as well as Section 47 of the CPC instead to argue further, the petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application before the Executing Court (Civil Court) under Section 47 of the CPC as well as appropriate proceeding before the Tahsildar as well as before Revisional/Appellate Authority of the Revenue Sector to cha...
Managing Director Vs. Mohammad Jamil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Managing Director, MPSRTC and another versus Mohammed Jamil 10.12.2012. Shri P.K.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order passed by the Labour Court, Khandwa in a proceeding initiated before him under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the order for payment of `10,351/- to the respondent/workman, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent was working as a Driver in the MP State Road Transport Corporation and was granted retirement under the VRS Scheme. As his pensionary claim and post retiral dues were not paid, it seems that he initiated proceedings under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act. It was his contention that he was entitled to a sum of `6,20,784/-, out of which only a sum of `2,23,498/- has been paid. Accordingly, seeking payment of the remaining amount of `3,97,355/-, the application was filed and after adjudication of the dispute in question, initially in the original application and subsequently in the review application vide orders Annexures ...
Rajkumar Shobhane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
rajkumar shobhne versus State 1 W.P.No.4321/2012 10.12.2012: Shri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for respondents . Petitioner is posted and is working in Datiya and the dispute is with regard to the appointment or otherwise of the petitioner in District Datiya, the impugned action is taken by the Collector, Datiya and therefore, office has raised an objection as jurisdiction to deal with the matter is with the Gwalior Bench of this Court and petition before this Court is not maintainable. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that in the previous round of litigation certain petitions were entertained before this Bench and therefore, the matter be considered, the fact remains that previously even though the writ petition was filed before this Bench, it was disposed of without taking note of the aforesaid objection and not when on the basis of the order passed in the earlier writ petition acti...
Chandra Mohan Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20171/2012 10.12.2012 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition without challenging any specific order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of respondents to pay them the entire amount of compensation in lieu of their land so acquired by the respondents. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to make the payment of interest on the aforesaid sum on account of delayed payment at the prevalent banking rate is also made. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, in response of some query of the court based on Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as in the light of pendency of some appeal of the petitioners before the Collector, instead to argue further, petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with libert...
Bhagwan Das Patel Vs. Smt. Aarti Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.P.No.20284/2012 10.12.2012. Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.57-A/2011 whereby allowing the application of the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC the annexed documents are taken on record. Initially the petitioner's counsel has argued the case at length saying that such documents were submitted at the very belated stage after recording the evidence of the plaintiff/ petitioner and as per mandatory provision of CPC after commencement of the trial the same could not be taken on record but in response of some query of the Court, instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to raise all the objections and grounds stated in the petition subject to final judgment and decree of t...
Bhai Lal Burma Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.7826/2012 Bhai Lal Burma Vs. Food Corporation of India & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Uday Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (____.12.2012) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 03.09.2009 by which it is held that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 18.12.1952 and No.18.12.1962, as claimed by the petitioner. It is contended that in fact the petitioner is an illiterate person. He was inducted in the services of the respondents No.1 and 2 on temporary basis on 21.10.1989. He was working as Handling Labour. Certain proformas were prepared and submitted by...
Gouri Shankar Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20702/2012 (G.S.Prajapati versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the reservation made by the respondents/authorities in the wards of Municipal Council, Umariya on 16.11.2012. It is submitted that ward No.2 has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste category on the basis of the percentage of population of the said category whereas ward No.4 ought to have been reserved for S.C.category as the population of the said category is more in ward No.4 as compared to ward No.2. It is further contended that ward No.7 has again been reserved for general category woman candidate although the said ward should have been excluded while making reservation for woman as it was reserved for general category woman in previous elections which is contrary to the provisions of M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 and M.P.Municipalities (Res...
Sumitra Vs. Gayadeen Chamar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.P.No.20310/2012 10.12.2012. Shri Amresh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 28.11.2012 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Nagod in Civil Original Suit No.6-A/2009 whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking annexed documents on record has been dismissed. It is undisputed fact on record that such application has been filed subsequent to recording and closing the evidence of plaintiff and during recording the deposition of respondent/ defendant and their witnesses. It also appears that concerning documents were very well in the knowledge in the petitioner/plaintiff on the date of filing the suit but till recording the evidence of the petitioner the same were not submitted before the trial Court. Accordingly the same have been placed after commencement of the trial and as per mandato...
Manoj Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.16453/2012 (Manot Patel versus State of M.P.& ors.) 10.12.2012 Heard Shri M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is stated to be President of Parent and Teacher association of the Government Primary School, Turkai, Tahsil Pathariya, District Damoh has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.06.2012, by which the Government Primary School, Turkai has been shifted to Adivasi Tola (Harijan Tola).Jamunia, Tahsil Pathariya. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government Primary School, which has been existing at Turkai since 1962, has not been shifted on the excuse that only 20 students have been enrolled in the said school. It is stated that as the school was existing since 1962, the Shiksha Guarantee school, which was recently established in Adivasi Tola (Harijan Tola).should infact have been merged with the Government Primary School and not vice versa. Having he...
Smt. Saraswati Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.16062/2012 (Smt. Saraswati Bai versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Shri S.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the caveator. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 16.10.2012 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Indrana Tahsil Majhouli, District Jabalpur. Though it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Collector is revisable before the Commissioner, he however, submits that during the pendency of the matter before the Collector he had approached the Commissioner the respondent No.2 by filing a revision against the order passed by the Collector rejecting his application for stay which had been dismissed by order dated 05.07.2012 and while ...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »