Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Ritesh Tondon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.9692/2012 (Ritesh Tondon versus State of MP and otheRs.20.07.2012 Heard Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that inspite of an order being passed by the respondent /Corporation on the directions issued by this court in W.P.16101/2011 dated 01.10.2011 after hearing the respondent No.5 and inspite of the fact that the respondent/Corporation in the order has recorded a finding to the effect that the respondent No.5 has made the illegal construction as well as encroachment, the authorities are not implementing the order by removing encroachment though the petitioner has filed a representation before the authorities on 22.06.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the circumstances, the respondents be directed to take action, pursuant to the orders passed by them, expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer m...
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1....W.P.No.10928 of 2012 Pepsico India Holding PVT.LTD.State of M.P.& ors 20.7.2012 Shri C.S.Lodha, learned Counsel with Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged order dated 7.6.2012 passed by respondent No.2 the Assessing Officer, which is filed as Annexure P-1 by which the product of the petitioner namely 'kurkure' was not treated as Namkeen and has been directed to be assessed tax under the residuary entry at higher rate of tax. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the circular Annexure P-9 dated 8.11.2006 the product 'kurkure' which was treated under the entry of Namkeen, under the old Act namely M.P.Commercial Tax Act was liable to be assessed under the caption of Namkeen but the Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed under the residuary entry. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has placed reliance to an order of the M.P.Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal dated 15.6.2011 in the matter of the petition...
Rishabh Kumar JaIn Vs. M. P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitram Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
20.07.2012. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.P.Shroti with Shri Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging the order-dated 17.6.2009 Annexure P/1 passed by respondent No.4 The Executive Engineer (O&M).and, the order-dated 19.1.2011 Annexure P/4 passed by respondent No.3 The Superintending Engineer, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that petitioner is working as a Class III employee and by the impugned order a major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the statutory provisions with regard to appointment and conducting disciplinary action against the employee and points out that it is the Superintending Engineer, who is the appointing authority for all employees falling in Class III and IV category, and as per the schedule to the discipline and appeal rules, the competent au...
Sitaram Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.10312/2012 20.07.2012 Shri Rahul Rawat, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 on advance copy. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that both the petitioners are major and they have solemnized the marriage but said marriage is becoming eyesore to the parents of petitioner No.2 and not they are very much after the petitioners and their life be saved by providing police protection to them. By inviting my attention to application (Annexure- P/4) dated 1.7.2012 addressed to Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur it has been contended that Superintendent of Police was requested in that regard but no protection to the petitioners has been provided and their lives are in danger. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of by giving a direction to respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur to look after the matter and if the lives of these petitioners are in danger, necessary...
Jhabua Power Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.9674/2012 (Jhabua Power LTD.versus State of MP and otheRs.20.07.2012 Heard Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition submitting that the villagers are agitating against the petitioner/Company and in such circumstances, the respondents be directed to provide them police protection. From a perusal of the petition and looking to the grievance of the petitioner, it is apparent that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the concerned Collector and Superintendent of Police. Needless to state that in case the petitioner does so, the said authorities would look into the matter and deal with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ravi Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1874/2007 Ravi Singh @ Raghuveer and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellants : Ms. Chhoti Kushram, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 20th day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.9.2007 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST. No.160/2006 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 34 and sentenced for one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment was also directed.2. Prosec...
Smt.Shashi Namdeo Vs. Head Master,sarswati Shishu Mandir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1 W.P.No.7466/2007 20/7/2012: Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Labour Court, Satna, rejecting a claim made by the petitioner for payment of minimum wages for the period 1.10.2001 to January 2002, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Record indicates that petitioner was working as a Peon in the establishment of the respondents since 1991. The establishment of the respondent is an educational institute and vide Notification dated 14/18 October, 1999 exercising powers conferred under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The schedule to the Act was amended and by making entry No.38 employment in "private educational institute including coaching institute was made" a scheduled establishment under the Act. Inter alia contending that once the institute in question comes within the purview of the Minimum Wages ...
Ramnarayan Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
20.07.2012. Shri D.N.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 6.7.2012 by respondent No.2, proposing to cancel the appointment of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that the order is illegal and cannot be passed in view of certain orders passed by a Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Accordingly, contending that the action proposed in the show-cause notice is unsustainable as it runs contrary to the decision already taken by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, points out that for the present only a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and if the petitioner feels that due to the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation the action proposed is unsustainable...
Kemla Mahila Sav Sahayata Samuh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.9544/2012 (Kemla Mahila Sev Sahayata Samuh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 20.07.2012 Heard Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.02.2012, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jandpad Panchayat, Sihawal, District Sidhi whereby the interim arrangement made previously under which the petitioner had been given the work of supplying mid-day meals on account of there being a dispute between respondent No.5 Guru Jogni Mahila Sva. Sahayata Samuh and Janki Mahila Sva. Sahayata Samuh has been terminated. As is apparent from a perusal of Annexure P-1, i.e., the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa dated 13.12.2011 and the impugned order dated 21.02.2012, the dispute between respondent No.5 Guru Jogni Mahila Sva. Sahayata Samuh and Janki Mahila Sva. Sahayata Samuh regarding the right to supply mid-day meals in government Middle School, ...
Gram Panchayat Bamhori Vs. Keshav Sen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
20.07.2012. Shri Shailesh Mishra for the petitioner. Shri L.C.Chourasiya for respondent No.1. None for the other respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat and challenge in this writ petition is made to an order-dated 25.8.2009 passed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act).deciding an application under section 20 of the Act, and directing for payment of difference of minimum wages/salary to the non-applicant No.1 amounting to ` 82,233/-. It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that in the application filed under section 20 of the Act, the respondent employee had sought for difference of salary for various periods and non-payment of minimum wages for various periods. The period range from 1.4.2003 to March 2006 and as the application was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 20 of the Act, it is argued that the competent authority committed an error in entertaining the application without ...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »