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.
Girish Mishra Vs. the Divisional Dy.Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Smt.Seema Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harisingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Harisingh & Ors. Writ Petition No.1885/ 2007 (s) 16.7.2012: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioners. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court directing for classification of employee concerned on a particular post in accordance to the provisions of the standard standing order, formulated under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, the petitioner State has filed this writ petition.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is seen that the learned Labour Court and the Industrial Court have directed for classification of employee concerned only on the ground that he has been working on a particular post for a period of more than 6 months and, therefore, he has to be classified. However, while doing so, in the matter of classification, the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o...
Smt. Saroj Namdeo Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1 R.P.No.628/2011 16.7.2012 Shri A. K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents. This application has been filed seeking recall of the order passed by this Court on 3.3.2008 in W.P.No.10175/2006 by which a writ petition filed by the respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed and the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge, Class II Sehora, District Jabalpur in MJ.No.129/2001 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner therein under Section 151 C.P.C., was rejected. This Court found that the petitioner in the original writ petition Shri Vinot Kumar had made out certain grounds for acceptance of his application under Section 151 CPC and after taking note of statement of AW-2 Dr.M.R. Roy, this Court allowed the application under Section 151 CPC and directed the Executing Court to proceed in accordance with law. not it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Decree pass...
Ramsiya Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.10887/2006 16/07/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA for the respondents/State. Petitioner was working as a Home Guard Sainik and has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-P4 dated 14.7.2004, by which appointment of the petitioner as a Home Guard Sainik was terminated. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned action is taken without notice to the petitioner, without hearing him, by casting a stigma and various allegations against the petitioner behind his back, therefore, it is illegal. The reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner are contained in Annexure-R2 dated 24.7.2004, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents in the return. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr.Counsel points out that in this communication, various grounds are raised for terminating the services of the petitioner and the grounds, therein, are stigmatic in natur...
Brijendra Kumar Soni Vs. the Department of Social Justice Govt. of Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
16.07.2012. Dr. R.B.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. Petitioner is working as Assistant Grade III in the office of Deputy Director, Social Justice, Seoni and he has been suspended vide order-dated 20.3.2012. Interalia contending that the allegations levelled in the order of suspension are not correct, petitioner is not responsible for the lapses indicated in the suspension order and pointing out the allegations levelled in the suspension order are not correct, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. Suspension in question is not challenged on the grounds of any statutory rule or regulation being violated, suspension is challenged only on the ground that the reasons for suspending him are not correct. If that be so, it is for the competent appellate authority to consider the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such...
Madhya Pradesh Housingh Board Vs. Smt. Kundanbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1 F.A.No.666/2012 M.P.Housing Board, Khandwa Smt.Kundanbai & others 16.7.2012 Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Counsel for appellant. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. I.A.No.7153/2012 for stay Issue notice of this application to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. Subject to hearing the other side, till next date of hearing, the execution of the impugned award passed by the reference Court shall remain stayed on following terms:- (1) Appellant to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount within a period of 30 days from today before the reference Court. (2) On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the same on furnishing due security to the satisfaction of the reference Court, with an undertaking that in case this appeal is allowed or some other order is passed, the respondents shall comply with such an order within a period of 30 days from the date of such an order. Record of the reference ...
Smt. Lalto Bai Chaudhary Vs. Suresh Kumar Barman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P. No. 13683/2010 16.7.2012 Shri Abhay Jain, learned counsel with Smt. Devika Singh for the petitioneRs.Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. With consent the matter is heard finally. Grievance putforth by the petitioner vide this petition is that despite of being benefited by enhanced compensation in a Motor Accident Claim case the petitioners on execution of said claim are being deprived of the benefit of such enhancement on the technical count that the owner of the vehicle has not tendered the surety. On 20.11.2002 at about 3.40 p.m. a Mini Bus M.P. 20 G 0875 turned turtle between Maneri Hillock and Khera resulting in casualities and injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by Gunjan Gulati and driven by one Suresh Kumar Burman. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd./ respondent No. 3. Petitioners who are the leg...
Anil Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
The State of M.P. Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.862 of 1997 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Umrao Singh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri F. Usmani, counsel for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 16th day of July, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.1996 passed by learned CJ.Raisen in Criminal Case No.865/1991 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C.2. Prosecution's case in short is that the respondent was the President in Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Hakimkhedi whereas accused Moolchand was Samiti Sewak in that Society. On audit, it was found that in the year 1975 some amount was recovered from various members but, e...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »