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.
Ramchandra Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1....MCC.No.684 o4. 7.2012 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of M.A.1938/2006 which was dismissed because of the non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.5.2006. For the reasons stated in the application which are supported by an affidavit, we find it appropriate to allow this application by condoning the delay in filing this application on following terms:- 1. applicant to deposit Rs.500/- in the High Court Bar Association for Library fund within a period of one week from today.2. On furnishing the receipt there on in the office, office to restore the appeal and list the same before the appropriate Bench. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Smt. Nisha Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.16735 / 2011 (Smt. Nisha Shukla ..v ..State of M.P.& otheRs.04-07-2012 Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the directions of Sub Divisional Officer, Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna, the police authorities are not registering a case against the respondents No.7 and 8 and in such circumstances it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the authorities. In the circumstances, in view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Satna, to look into the matter and take action against the respondents No.7 and 8 expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the aforesaid authority to do so a copy of the order passed by this Court today and a copy of the petition be served upon the concerned au...
Geeta Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.853/2006 04/07/2012 Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the Respondents/State. Challenging the action of the respondents in cancelling the kramonnati granted to the petitioner's husband and, thereafter, directing for recovery of the benefit of pay-fixation granted on the said kramonnati, petitioner Smt.Geeta Sharma, widow of Lata Ashok Kumar Sharma has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that late Ashok Kumar Sharma was earlier working in the Land Army. When the said organization was abolished by the State Government in the year 1992, employees working in the said department were absorbed in other departments. Consequently, petitioner's husband Late Ashok Kumar Sharma was also absorbed in the Tribal Department on 2.8.1994 and while working so, he died on 14.8.2004. While in service, Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma was granted benefit of kramonnati, after counting the services rendered by him in the Land Army. However, after his ...
Krishna Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.3532/10 (K.K.Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.04.07.2012 Shri R.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction from this court the respondents to decide the Criminal Case No.1287/04 (State of MP versus Jaipal Singh and otheRs.pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Shahdol at an early date as the matter was initiated 20 years back by registering Crime No.143/92. A report had been called for from the concerned court regarding progress of the proceedings pursuant to which a report dated 17.02.2012 has been forwarded by the court concerned to this court in which, after reporting the progress of the case and enumerating its difficulty in early disposal, the court has prayed for one year time to decide the case. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondents as well as the court concerned to...
Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shri Radheshyam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.1966/2010 4.7.2012 Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner- State. Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-workman. Heard on I.A.No.10772/2011 an application filed by the respondent - workman for dismissal of the case in view of an order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1843/2010. Having gone through the material available on record and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that three employees namely one Shri Laxmi Narayan, Manohar and Radheshyam i.e.the present respondent were working in the establishment of Narmada Valley Development Authority and their services were terminated. Inter alia contending that termination is illegal and the same amounts to retrenchment and as the precondition stipulated under Section 25(f) of Industrial Disputes Act, has not been complied with, the same be declared as illegal. In all the three cases, reference was made to the Labour Court and...
P.K.(Pavitra Kumar) Banerjee Vs. M.P.State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.4252/2010 4.7.2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar, for the petitioner. Shri H. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.860/2012 has been filed by the petitioner for taking relevant facts on record and it is pointed out that even though in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 4.4.2012 petitioner is reinstated and permitted to join duties after order Annexure R1/4 was passed on 18.4.2012 but regular salary in accordance to entitlement and pay scale prescribed is not made, instead a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards advance is being paid to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that once in pursuance to the order passed on 4.4.2012 he has been reinstated and discharging his duties, he is entitled to relevant pay scale on which he is working and respondents with a view to harass the petitioner are not granting the said benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a week's time to seek instructions and give his say ...
Vijay Shankar Mishra Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Writ Petition No.21898/2011 4.7.2012 Shri S.P.Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. This petition is directed against the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Transfer Application No.320/2010. Admittedly, against the order under challenge the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under the provisions of Armed Forces Tribunal Act. The learned counsel for petitioner, with a liberty to pursue the remedy available under the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, does not want to press the present petition. With the said liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The certified copy of the orders dated 23.9.2010 and 15.9.2011, Annexures P5 and P6, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing the photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SA...
Atul Bhargav Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.2877/2009 (Atul Bhargav versus Union of India and otheRs.04.07.2012 Shri M.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition in view of the provisions of statutory remedy of filing an appeal under section 7(I) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not disputed. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order by filing appeal against the same in accordance with law. It is however, observed that this court had passed interim order on 29.04.2009 prohibiting the respondents from taking coercive steps subject to the petitioner's depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- and as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already de...
Shiv Kumar Kahar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.5482/2012 4.7.2012 Shri Amit Patel, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3. It is submitted by Shri Pandey that today he has filed progress report, but copy of it has not been served upon the petitioner. A copy of the progress report be served upon the counsel for petitioner. From the perusal of report dated 15.5.2012, we find that the father of petitioner had intimated to the Police that Ku.Jyoti Kahar contacted to him by a cell phone and the aforesaid cell phone was found to be of maternal uncle of Umesh Pillai of Indore. In spite the aforesaid information, it appears that the Police has not made serious efforts to trace out Ku.Jyoti Kahar. Thereafter, certain efforts have been made since 7.6.2012 onwards, but it appears to be simply an eye wash and no effective steps were taken by the Police to trace out Ku.Jyoti Kahar. In view of aforesaid, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the matter and to make all efforts ...
Abha Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P. No.14248.11 Writ Petition No.14248 of 2011 ( A b h a D w i v ed i Vs . T h e S ta t e o f M . P . a n d ni n e o t h e r s) 04/07/2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents No.1, 2 and 5 to 10. None for the respondents No.3 and 4. Heard. Petitioner, a student of Peoples College of Dental Science, Bhopal, prosecuting her course in Bachelor of Dental Science, vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to consider her case for admission in MBBS course which had fallen vacant and to rusticate suspicious candidates from MBBS Course and allow the seat in MBBS course to deserving candidates who were deprived of opportunity of admission in MBBS course because of fraudulent candidates and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of MBBS seat as per rule 3.5 and 3.6 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 (herei...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »