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.
M.P.High Court Employees Association Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.A.No.1914/2007 High Court of M.P.Employees State of M.P.& others Association 18.7.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents. Learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset submitted that after filing this writ appeal, circumstances have changed, new Rules have come into force and new pay scales have been provided to the employees of the High Court. Apart from this, new posts with new pay scales have been created, so he may be permitted to withdraw this writ appeal, with liberty to re-agitate the matter, in case such exigency arises, even after framing of new Rules and providing pay scales. Prayer is not opposed by Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel for respondents. In view of aforesaid, prayer of appellant is allowed. Appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal, with liberty as prayed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
Manoj Kumar Kostha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 W.P.No.15076/2011 18/07/2012: Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate, for the respondents. Petitioner belongs to Halba Community, which falls in the Scheduled Tribe Category. Certain benefit was granted to the petitioner on this count and on the ground that benefit was granted incorrectly, the same is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the benefit and consequential action taken is challenged by the petitioner. The benefit is withdrawn and the Caste Certificate canceled on the basis of a report submitted by the High Power Committee. The question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner belongs to Halba community and whether he is entitled to the benefit, being member of Scheduled Tribe community. Even though respondents have tried to justify their action by filing a detailed return but during the pendency of this petition, policy with regard to granting benefit to the Halba community has undergone changes and a p...
The Archaeological Survey of India Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.3287/2009 (The Archaeological Survey versus The Collector & Ors.) 18.07.2012 Shri N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.7. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that in spite of the fact that the land in question, on which certain ancient temples have been acquired by the petitioner for the purpose of conservation, restoration and protection under the Ancient Monuments Act. The respondents interfering with the possession of the petitioner and continuing to encroach upon the land. By interim order dated 01.04.2009, this court had restrained the respondents No.5 to 7 from exerting occupation over land bearing KhaSr.No.278/2, 280/2-A, 280/2-B, 281/2-A, 282, 291/1-A, 291/2 admeasuring 1.526 Hectare, situated at village Amarkantak,District Anuppur. Subsequently by order dated 17.05.2012, it had further been ordered that no demolition work be carr...
M/S U.B.Engineering Ltd. Vs. M/S Vindhyanchal Air Product Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.161 / 2008 (M/S.U.B.Engineering Ltd., Pune versus M/S.Vindhyachal Air Product PVT.Ltd., Ujjain) 18-07-2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-11-2005 passed by the District Judge, Sidhi in Execution Case No.4/2005. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an award dated 15-7-2005 was passed by the Industrial Facilitation Council, Bhopal in Case not IFC/129/03 under the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1993') and Execution Case No.4/2005 was instituted before the District Judge, Sidhi for implementation and execution of the said award in which the impugned order dated 22-11-2005 has been passed by the District Judge, Sidhi. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not aggrieved by the award dated...
Union of India Vs. Laxman Lalwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P. No. 1156/2008 18.7.2012 Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.None for the respondents. Heard. The petition is directed against the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur; whereby O.A. No. 981/2005 preferred by respondents seeking implementation of Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) has been allowed and the petitioners herein are directed to pay to respondents higher pay scale of Rs.40006000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. By the impugned order the Tribunal held: 7. So far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The Scheme of TBOP has been extended to the applicants with effect from 1.6.2003 and the benefit thereof has been given to them. This has been done subsequent to the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 438/99 (Annexure A2) wherein the Tribunal very clearly mention that the applicants will also be eligible for be...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mahesh Kumar Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.767/2012 18.07.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the appel- lant. Shri S.P.Khare, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.6679/2010 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and certain directions were issued to appoint him on regular basis on the post of L.D.C.in the light of the earlier judgment. This appeal is barred by one year 142 days and for this the appellant has moved an application, I.A.No.7970/2012, seeking condonation of delay. It is stated in the application that the aforesaid order came into the notice of the appellant only on 2.12.2011 and thereafter the law department granted sanction on 19.12.2011 for filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the concerned clerk has not taken any action for filing the writ appeal and ultimately another employee on 7.5.2012 took steps for filing of the appeal. From perusal of the impugned order we find that the case was de...
Magan Lal Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.9344/2012 (Maganlal Gupta & Ors versus State of M.P.& ors.) 18.07.2012 Shri L.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at length submits that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the respondent Nos.2 and 3, as the case may be. It goes without saying that in case the petitioners approach the authorities for mitigation of their grievances, the said authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously as early as possible. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stand disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Shri Govind Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.10201/2012 (Govind Pathak versus State of MP and otheRs.18.07.2012 Heard Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State and Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 in the pending revision before the Board of Revenue whereby the Board of Revenue instead of passing the order on the application for stay filed by the petitioner has directed listing of the same after service of notice on the respondents as well as on receiving the record on 30.08.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a result of the aforesaid order the respondents are continuing to raise illegal construction which would cause an irreparable damage and injury to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the present pe...
Lakhan Lal Gadekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 1 Writ Appeal No.745/2012 18.07.2012 Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respond- ents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 8.5.2012 passed in W.P.No.11372/2007(S) by which the prayer of the ap- pellant for regularisation was declined. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appel- lant was appointed after the selection process. But other two em- ployees who were selected along with the appellant were regular- ised while the appellant was not regularised. Though after acquit- tal in the criminal case, the appellant was re-instated in the ser- vice, but without any benefit of the earlier service discharged by the appellant. It was submitted that this appeal may be admitted for hear- ing, on merits. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate suppor- ted the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To appreciate the contention of the appellant some factual position deserves to be stated. The ap...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Raj Kapoor Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.A.No.375/2012 & W.A.No.376/2012 State of M.P.& others Dr.Raj Kapoor Verm18. 7.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for appellants. Shri Vivek Rusia, counsel for respondent. This order shall decide W.A.No.375/2012 and W.A.No.376/2012, in which the controveRs.is identical and both the cases were decided by the Single Bench in the light of judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh and others versus Smt.Chitra Rai (Malviya) passed in W.A.No.72/2011. This appeal is directed against a common order dated 4.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.6501/2010 and W.P.No.13150/2005, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed with following directions :- The petitioner was working as an Assistant Professor in a private school since 1985. The college was taken over by the State Government in the year 1987 and the petitioners services were absorbed by the State Government and the petitioner continued to work on the post of Assistant Professor. Petitioners case was also approved by the Public Servic...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »