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.
Smt. Madhu JaIn Vs. Smt. Shashi Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
F.A.No.910/2011 3.12.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for appellant. Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for respondent no.1. I.A.No.13567/2011 for modification of order dated 17.10.2011 and I.A.No.1910/2012 for condonation of delay in compliance of order dated 17.10.2011. By these applications appellant is seeking modification of condition no.(ii) in our order dated 17.10.2011, by which appellant was directed to deposit cost incurred in the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. It is stated that the aforesaid cost was deposited by the appellant on 15.12.2011 which was not within the time period as fixed by this Court. It is also submitted that the appellant could manage with great difficulty this amount and could deposit it on 15.12.2011. It is also submitted that the amount of cost is on the higher side, so the appellant may be permitted to withdraw it. After hearing both the parties, we find that the cost has been deposited on 15.12.2011. For the reasons st...
Abhay Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.A.No.1375/2012 Abhay Kumar Dwivedi State of M.P.& others 3.12.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, Counsel for appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.11.2012 in W.P.No.19014/12(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. Learned counsel for appellant at the outset submitted that the appellant had made a representation Annexure P/5 to the Collector, Balaghat who may be directed to decide the representation. Prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by Shri Pathak. In view of aforesaid, without interfering in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this appeal with following directions:- 1. Appellant to file an application before the Collector, Balaghat for expeditious hearing of representation Annexure P/5. Alongwith the application, petitioner shall enclose copy of petition and copy of order passed by the Single Bench dated 9.11.2012.2. In case, such an application is filed within ...
M/S Land Mark Engineer, a Sole Proproetorshi Firm Vs. Madhya Pradesh R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20105 / 2012 (M/S.Landmark Engineer..v...MP Rural Road Development Agency & otheRs.03-12-2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. After arguing at length, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the respondent/authorities have granted time to the petitioner till January, 2013, to complete the work vide Annexure P-10 which period is yet to elapse and as the petitioner has already moved the authority by filing a dispute under Clause 24 of the agreement which is pending decision, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an application before the authorities in the pending proceedings for obtaining an interim order of stay in respect of forfeiture of bank guarantee and security before January, 2013. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same in view of Annexure P-10....
ijm Corporation Berhad Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.19444/2012 03.12.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this petition to Shri K.N.Pethiya, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 within three weeks against acknowledgment and to file the receipt in the office. It is submitted by the petitioner that in an identical matter W.P.No.446/2012 a Division Bench of this Court has already passed the interim order. It is submitted that this petition be also admitted for final hearing. In W.P.No.446/2012, considering the similar controversy, a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- "The appeal of the petitioner regarding the validity of the TDS rate fixation, which according to the petitioner was under section 197 of the income Tax Act and which according to the Department is under section 195, was directly in issue has been dismissed, not on merits, but on the technical ground of non- maintainability by the CIT (Ap...
Jagmohan Lal Shrivastava Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.19498/20103. 12.2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that after absorption in the Govt. services, his past services as Panchayat Secretary w.e.f.the year 1963 have not been counted and the petitioner has not been given the benefit of pension. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in the Janpad Panchayat. The scheme was made by the State Government to absorb the services of those, who were appointed earlier as Panchayat Secretary by the Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat as Gram Sahayak. Subsequently, after due approval, orders were issued and the petitioner was absorbed as Gram Sahayak for the purposes of his posting as Secretary in the Gram Panchayat. Such an order was issued on 03.07.1989 and only this much period of service is counted for the purposes of regularizing his claiMs.The ...
Smt. Phool Mati Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Smt. Phool Mati Maravi versus State of MP and others 03.12.2012. Shri Praveen Verma for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that based on the directions issued by this Court on 19.12.2011, in Writ Petition No.21500/2011(S).petitioner has already represented to respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the claim made by the petitioner in his representation Annexure P/7 within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Bala Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20097 / 2012 (Bala Prasad ..Vs.State of MP & another) 03-12-2012 Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/Collector, Jabalpur to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 19-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 against the act of the respondent No.2 in shifting the purchase centre of wheat and paddy crops from village Nuniyakala to village Kohana which is 10 K.Ms.away. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the last minute change in the place of purchase by the respondent No.2 is resulting in tremendous loss to the farmers and several hundred bags of paddy are lying on the spot. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the Collector, Jabalpur,...
Smt.Vimal Prabha JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Smt. Vimal Prabha Jain versus State of MP and another 03.12.2012. Shri Dilip Pandey for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur dated 19.6.2012 Annexure P/4 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that no interference into an order of remand made by the Additional Collector is called for, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Matter pertains to appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta to Anganwadi Center Maddevra No.4 Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Bakswaha, District Chhatarpur. 19 applications were received in pursuance to an advertisement issued and on the basis of merit petitioner was appointed. Respondent No.5 Smt. Archana Jain challenged the appointment of the petitioner. The Additional Collector called for the records and on scrutiny of the same found that petitioner has been granted 10...
Shri Satya Sai Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.12864/11. 3.12.2012 Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sumit Nema, Shri A.P.Shroti and Shri Abhinav Dhanorkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sushrut Dharmadhikari, Sourabh Sunder and Goutam Prasad, counsel for the respondents In compliance of earlier order this matter is listed today for final disposal. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Mathur, on behalf of the petitioner has begun his arguments on merits, but in the couRs.of arguments by giving two options (a) that the petitioner is ready to give indemnity bond in connection of disputed fixed deposits receipt, (b) that the Court may publish the notice to the general public for inviting the objection of the concerning person who are claiming the disputed FDRs and on coming any objection therein the petitioner is ready to do the needful in that regard and in such premises, prayed to grant time for further arguments on merits at later stage with a prayer...
Amar Dayal Yadav Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
R.P.No.852/2012 (A.D.Yadav versus General Managr and otheRs.03.12.2012 Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the Bank. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that inspite of order dated 09.11.2012 in R.P.No.852/2012 and informing the learned counsel for the applicant by the counsel for the respondents/Bank personally to withdraw the amount as ordered by this court, the applicant has not approached the Bank for withdrawal of the amount and has filed an application seeking release of a particular amount every month from his salary account for the fiRs.time on 21.11.2012. The learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that an appropriate decision shall be taken by the respondents/Bank regarding release of the amount on the application filed by the petitioner within 15 days and intimation in that regard would be sent to the applicant. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Bank which is take...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »