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.
Totaram Vs. Prabhulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P No.19447 o04. 12.2012 Shri Awinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.14950/12, an application for grant of stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Till next hearing of this petition the further proceeding of C.O.S.No.7-A/2011 pending in the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Khandwa is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Dr.Rajesh Rajora Vs. Secretary Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.13833/2010 04.12.2012 Shri Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondents. Shri Lal commenced his arguments. It is submitted by him that he is possessing satisfaction note in a sealed cover along with him. On being asked that what was found in the search, it was submitted by the petitioner that except Rs.23,000/- nothing was found during the search. This position is disputed by the respondents. On being asked whether the envelope contains the seizure memo or appraisal report prepared at the time of search and seizure, it was submitted Shri Lal that in this regard he may be allowed a short time to seek instructions. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for further hearing on 18.12.2012. On the aforesaid date, the respondents shall produce all the aforesaid documents including any other documents, which may be required for hearing, in a sealed cover, for perusal of this Court. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn ...
VipIn Kumar Kharadi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.2111/2009 Vipin Kumar Kharadi Vs. State of MP and others Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, advocate. For the respondents : Shri Puneet Shroti, P.L. ORDER (04.12.2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.05.2008 which has been communicated to the petitioner on 16.12.2008 passed by the High Power State Level committee constituted by the State to enquire into the caste certificate issued to various persons by which the petitioner's caste certificate has been cancelled.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person belonging to Khairwar (Kondar), scheduled tribe which is a notified scheduled tribe under the presidential notification. It is submitted that the petitioner's father, mother and uncle all have been granted certificates stating that they are persons belonging to Khairwar (Kondar) scheduled tribe categor...
Rashmi Agarwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.19436/2012 04.12.2012 Shri M.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 22.10.2012, (Ann. P-2) passed by the Upper Collector, Chhatarpur in Revenue Case No.56/Appeal/Nigrani (revision)/11/12 affirming the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the SDO, Chhatarpur in Revenue Appeal No.20/Appeal/10-11 whereby some order of Tahsildar as alleged passed on dated 29.4.2011 under the provision of Land Revenue Code was affirmed. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing this petition but on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of provision of Section 44 and Section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, in short The Code. provides the appeal or revision against the order passed by the Collector either in original jurisdiction or in the appellate jurisdiction before the superior authority of the revenue sector, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel regarding entertainabi...
Miss Poornima Sharma Vs. Dr. V.K. Saluja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P.No.1247/12 4/12/12 Petitioner in person. Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned counsel and Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner was working in the institute of respondent No.1 and in the matter of her services, serious disputes have risen. Petitioner was an Asstt. Professor in the Department of Microbiology and it seems that due to dispute between the petitioner and the institute, certain action has been taken against the petitioner vide order Annexure P-1. By the said order, petitioner's services have been dispensed with after giving one month's notice on the ground that her services are unsatisfactory and her services are dispensed with during the period of probation. Various averments are made in the petition. It is her contention that her services have been terminated due to malafides, she is not on probation and various averments are made by the petitioner. She has brought on record vario...
Dr.Leena Kulthiya Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Dr. Leena Kulthiya versus state 1 W.P.No.12866/2009 4.12.2012: Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Challenging the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Secretary, Jan Bhagirdari Prabandhan Samiti, Government Degree College, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, petitioner has filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner by the impugned order, petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) in the said college has been terminated and contending that the termination is due to malafide of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a degree holder having passed Ph.d and M.Phil examination in the subject of Political Science. Certain proceedings were initiated for appointment of Contract Teachers under the M.P.Higher Education Contract Service) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the ...
M/S Aartech Solonics Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
..1.. ITA No.202/10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Income Tax Appeal No.202 of 2010 M/s Aartech Solonics Ltd. E-2/57 Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.) ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP) Respondent PRESENT: Hon'ble Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti Hon'ble Justice Smt.Vimla Jain Shri Sumit Nema, Counsel for appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondent. ORDER (Passed on 4/12/2012) This writ appeal was admitted on 1.12.2010 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether, the Tribunal, in arriving at a conclusion that the assessee has not assembled any product at all, exceeded its jurisdiction and scope of the proceedings before it by coming to a different factual finding totaling beyond the issue arising out of the first appellate order?..2. Facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical goods. It is having its one unit at Mandideep, Distric...
Ramsagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P.19525 o4. 12.2012 Shri S.D.Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sharda Dubey, GA for the respondents/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the authorities of the respondents from illegal use of his land. In addition to it, the prayer for issuing appropriate direction to the authorities of respondents No.2 to 4 to decide his pending representation Annex.P/5 to P/8 on some early date is also made. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of respondents No.1 to 5 to consider and decide the above mentioned representations Annex.P/5 to P/8 of the petitioner with speaking order within sixty days from the date of filing the certified copy of this order along with the copy of the petition and annexures in the offices o...
M/S Akshat Construction Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
R.P. No. 20012/2012 4.12.2012 Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Communication dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure P5) and Notice Inviting Tender dated 21.11.2012 is being challenged by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That, in order to facilitate earth work of Dam, Flush bar, Head Sluice, Approach Channel and Construction of Sagari Tank Spill Channel, Block Banda, district Sagar, respondent Water Resources Department, Government of M.P. issued the NIT on 20.9.2012. The petitioner was the only Contractor who was finally shortlisted. The respondent taking into consideration that there was a single tender for the work in question decided to cancel the NIT and call for fresh NIT by order dated 6.11.2012 by rejecting the tender of the petitioner and has now invited a fresh tender vide NIT dated 21.11.2012. Contention of the petitioner is that the decision taken by the respondent in cancelling the N...
Munna Lal Billaiya Vs. Municipal Corporation,katni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :5309. of 1998 Munnalal Baillaiya - V/s - Municipal Corporation, Katni & OtheRs.Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.P.Kekre and Shri Avinash Zargar, Learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 04/12/2012 Petitioner, who at the relevant time was working in Municipal Corporation, Katni as a Sub-Overseer, has filed this writ petition challenging the order-dated 29.4.1998 Annexure A/46, by which respondent No.4 has been promoted on the post of Zonal Officer in the then existing pay scale of `1640-2900/-. Challenge is also made to an order-dated 10.1.1997 Annexure A/32, by which petit...