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.
Central Government Vs. Harish Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR M.A.No.2343/2006 Harish Kori. Vs. Raju K. Rajvardhan and others. For the Appellant : Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate. For Res. No.1 & 4 : None. For Res.No.2 : Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For Res.No.3 : Shri Dinesh Koushal, Advocate. AND M.A.No.2534/2006 Central Govt. through Commandant MRC, Sagar Vs. Harish Kori.and others. For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For Res. No.1 : Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate. For Res.No.2 & 4 : None For Res.No.3 : Shri Dinesh Koushal, Advocate. ORDER (07/ 12 /2012 ) J.K.. Maheshwari,J.This order shall govern the disposal of MA No.2343/06 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement and also M.A No.2534/06 filed by the a Central Govt. through Commandant MRC, Sagar assailing the award of compensation. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 29.3.06 passed by the Ist AMACT, Sagar in Case No.32/04, aforesaid both the appeals have been preferred.2. The facts in brief are that on 29.10.03 at about 7 AM, the injured...
Satyendu Mohan Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.11552/2008 (S) Satyendu Mohan Vs. Union of India & another ____________________________________________________________ Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (_______.12.2012) The petitioner has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the respondents stating that he has tendered his resignation on 19.02.2008, which was immediately withdrawn by him but by the impugned order dated 01.04.2008, the same has been accepted, therefore, the right of the petitioner to remain in the employment after withdrawal of his resignation has been jeopardised and as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the resp...
Satyadeo Dwivedi Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Gurantee Parishad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Satyadeo Dwivedi versus MP Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad & ORS.W.P.No.13768/2011 06/12/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. Challenging the order dated 14.2.2011 passed by the Collector/ District Programme Co-ordinator Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Rojgar Guarantee Scheme, Anooppur terminating the services of the petitioner and the order passed on 30th of June, 2011 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner i.e.Respondent No.1, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and was appointed after due selection on contract basis. Order of contract appointment of the petitioner is Annexure-P1 dated 24.7.2008. Petitioner is working in the said post and records indicate that vide Annexure-P2 & P3, considering his working, which was found to be satisfactory, extensions were granted to him, based on the Proficiency Certificate given...
Tak Singh Kostha Vs. Shri Gulsan Bamra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Conc. No.1255/2010 6.12.2012: Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that an order passed on 30.6.2010 in W.P.No.6630/2010 has not been complied with within a period of two months this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and having right to passage for his land as indicated in the material available on record, it was the case of the petitioner that as certain obstructions has been created in the passage, he moved an application before the Tahsildar who vide order dated 26.3.2010 passed a direction for removal of the obstructions. Petitioner represented to the Collector and when nothing was done, writ petition was filed before this Court. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Collector to get the order of Tahsildar executed. not from the reply filed...
Citizens Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
W.P.No.410/2009 (Citizens Co-operative Bank versus Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner) 06.12.2012 Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.09.2008 as well as order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the respondent under Section 7A and 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Co-operative society and is exempted from the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that the number of employees of the Bank are less than the number stipulated in the Act and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned orders passed by the authority be quashed. It is further contended that in the absence of a notification being issued by the Government of ...
Munni Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
W.P.No.3618/2011 (Munni Bai versus State of M.P.& ors.) 06.12.2012 Shri H.S.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri Surendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Election Tribunal rejecting his proceedings filed under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C.for taking the photocopy of the caste certificate on record as well as order dated 09.02.2011 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order before the Collector. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has contested the election on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Pnchayat Pipra, Tahsil Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni as a candidate belonging to the reserved category of Manjhi. It is stated that in the election petition filed by the respondent, the issue regarding caste of the p...
Smt. Mamta Devi Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
W.P.No.20433/2012 6.12.2012: Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the Commissioner, Sagar Division has interfered into a reasonable order passed by the Collector which is based on the documents produced by the candidate concerned at the time of appointment and as finding recorded by the Collector is to the effect that the Caste Certificate produced by the respondent from the State of Uttar Pradesh is not valid for appointment, interference made by the Commissioner mainly on the ground that Caste Certificate produced by her husband is valid, seems to be unsustainable because as per the advertisement caste certificate of a candidate is to be filed. It is not known as to how appointment can be validated on the basis of the Certificate of the husband alone. This aspect of the matter is overlooked by the Commissioner and reasonable order passed by the Colle...
Rasheeda Be Vs. M.P.Sadak Pariwahan Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
1 W.P.No.12397/2010 6.12.2012: Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal and the Industrial Court in the matter of rejecting an application filed by the applicant under Section 32 of the M.P.Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and the appeal filed, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner Smt. Rashida Bi is wife of Late Abdul Rashid who was working in the M.P.State Road Transport Corporation as a Driver. He remain unauthorizedly absent for various period and therefore a charge sheet was issued to him, a departmental enquiry conducted and thereafter his services were terminated. Challenging termination of his service, he filed an application under Section 31(3) of the M.P.Industrial Relations Act, 1960, issues were framed and one of the issue framed in the proceeding before the Labour Court was with regard to tenability of departmental enquiry agai...
M.P. State Electricity Board and anr Vs. Presiding Officer and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.4286/2001 THE M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTHER VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, JABALPUR & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. None appears for the petitioners. Shri K. N. Pethia, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3. None appears for respondent No.4 inspite of service of notice and issuance of SPC. _____________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 6.12.2012 ) As the petition is pending since 2001 and cause of action for filing of the matter pertains to termination of respondent No.3 which took place in the year 1997, the matter is being heard and after perusal of the record and hearing learned counsel for respondent No.3, the matter is being decided.2. Challenge in this writ petition by the employer is made 2 to orders passed by the labour Court and the Industrial Court in the matter of granting relief to respondent No.3....
Tej Bahadur Singh Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
CONC. NO.333/2010 06-12-2012. Shri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by the respondent on 21-09-2010 extending the benefits to the applicant subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the pending SLP and taking note of the receipt submitted by the applicant on 06-08-2012 indicating that he has received the benefits of Second Kramonnati, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In view of the above, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt petition stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »