Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Arvind Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt. Prabha Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8794 / 2012 (Arvind Kumar Jain ..v ..Smt. Prabha Jain) 27-06-2012 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17-5-2012 passed by the XI Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.61- A/2008 whereby the petitioner's right to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses has been closed on account of the fact that the petitioner's advocate did not appear before the Court as he was medically indisposed to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. It is submitted that the petitioner had been present throughout and was also present in Court on all occasions, however, his right to cross examine has been closed only on the ground that the advocate was medically indisposed and could not appear on the date the case was fixed in the Court to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. From a perusal of the order sheets it is clear that the petitioner has been appearing befor...
Mahesh Narayan Hemkar Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.886/2012 27/06/2012 Shri Gyanendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has raised a dispute before the labour court, Rewa with regard to his classification. The claim of the petitioner was allowed, he was directed to be classified and difference of wages was also directed to be paid. As the classification was ordered, the State Government challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition No.13330/2009 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2011. After the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner herein sought execution of the order before the labour court. It seems that the labour court had issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Revenue Recovery Certificate is not being executed and the benefit is not being granted to the petitioner. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the ...
Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.16741/2003 (O.A.No.7551/2000) Pratap Singh Yadav and 13 otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (27.6.2012) For the reasons stated in the order passed today in Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (Pratap Singh Yadav and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.allowing the same, this writ petition is also allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge /06/2012 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.16741/2003 (O.A.No.7551/2000) Pratap Singh Yadav and 13 otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.ORDER ( .6.2012) Post it for /6/2012 (K. K.Trivedi) Judge /06/2012...
Prem Laxman Sonpure Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.4852.12 Writ Petition No.4852 o27. 06/2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Order dated 8 t h February, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A.No.650/2008 is being assailed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order Tribunal negatived the claim put forth by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents and its functionaries to consider his claim for regularization. The relief was sought on the fact that the petitioner appointed as Casual Labour in the Central Railway, Bhusawal Division on 17-04- 1982 worked continuously till 02-12-1988 when he was removed from service. It is contended by the petitioner that though removed from service his name was placed in live register maintained by the respondent/railways. It was contended that being in live register he was entitled for being considered for absorption in group-D posts in the railways along ot...
Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs. Widow of Harishankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8722/2012 (V.K.Mishra & anr. versus State of M.P.& ors.) 27.06.2012 Heard Shri A.P.Singh learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his pending suit by order dated 05.03.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1102/2012. However, on account of the fact that the Presiding Judge was being relieved on 26.03.2012, therefore, the petitioner could not produce his witnesses in time, as there was a marriage in their family. He prays that he be given an another opportunity to do so subject to payment of reasonable cost. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners deposit the cost of Rs.5,101/- on 16.07.2012 and keep his witnesses present on that date, the court below shall permit him to examine them and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. ...
M.P.Housing Board Vs. Shashi Kumar Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.16286/2007 27/06/2012 Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/Employee. Challenging the awards passed by the labour court, Sagar directing for reinstatement of the respondent/employee without back-wages, this petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the award in question as contained in Annexure- P4 passed by the labour court, Sagar exercising jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is seen that in the case of the employee in question, his services were terminated on the ground of the Regional Office Establishment is shifted. However, on the basis of the material that came on record, a finding of fact is recorded by the labour court to the effect that the provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act has not been complied with and without following the statutory provision and law, the termination which amounts to retrenchment is illega...
Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 W.P.No.8690/2012 Smt. Kaushalya Bai versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.06.2012 Heard Shri O.P.Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to arrest the respondent nos.4 to 6 as an offence under sections 456, 376(2)(g) and 506-B/34 IPC has been registered against them vide crime No.97/2012 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also filed a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Panna but no action thereon has been taken till date. As the police has already registered a fiRs.information report and the petitioner has already approached the Superintendent of Police, Panna, it is apparent that the police are taking action in accordance with law and, therefore, no direction is required to be issued by this Court as the police, in any case, would ta...
Vijay Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 W.P.No.8590/2012 Vijay Yadav versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.06.2012 Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.5.2012 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal directing registration of a criminal case against the petitioner as well as for taking action to hand over possession of the disputed shop to respondent no.9. It is further urged that by the impugned order the Dy. Inspector General of Police has directed registration of a criminal case against the petitioner which is not permissible in law. It is however pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Kumud Bai wife of late Ghanshyamdas Lidoriya, who has given power of attorney to the petitioner, has filed an application in the civil suit which is pending decision. I have...
Narendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.15595/2007 Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S.K. Karan, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (27/06/2012) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 by which while suspending the resolution of Gram Panchayat, Padariya, Block Kundam, District Jabalpur, it is directed that the respondent No.4 be appointed and notified as Panchayat Karmi and Secretary of the above said Gram Panchayat. Such order has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 85(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram...
M.P.Housing Board Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.16287/2007 27/06/2012 Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/Employee. Challenging the awards passed by the labour court, Sagar directing for reinstatement of the respondent/employee without back-wages, this petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the award in question as contained in Annexure- P4 passed by the labour court, Sagar exercising jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, it is seen that in the case of the employee in question, his services were terminated on the ground of the Regional Office Establishment is shifted. However, on the basis of the material that came on record, a finding of fact is recorded by the labour court to the effect that the provision of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act has not been complied with and without following the statutory provision and law, the termination which amounts to retrenchment is illega...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »