Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Atmaram Pandey Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.2969/2006 (Atmaram Pandey versus Provident Fund Commissioner and otheRs.30.08.2012 Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the proposed action of the respondents/authorities by issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for the purposes of executing the assessment order imposing liability upon the Bharti Bal Mandir, Rajgharana Mandir, Chhatarpur under the provisions of section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The aforesaid liability of Rs.22,410/- was assessed against the aforesaid institution in respect of the dues under the Act relating to the period from August, 1982 to March, 1988. After assessment the respondents/authorities initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues by issuing several notices to the institution as well as Principal. The notice dated 22.06.1993 was also issued to the pe...
Gulab Chourasia Vs. Sanjay Badhwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.13097 o30. 08.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the available circumstances, he is directed to file affidavits of concerning shop keepers from where the petitioner has taken goods or otherwise articles in connection of marriage of his daughter to show that such goods and articles were purchased on credit. Such exercise be carried out within 15 days and this matter be listed in the week commencing 17.9.2012 for admission as well as for final disposal. It is made clear that the presence of respondents are not required for adjudication of this writ petition. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Naresh Kumar Daheriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Naresh Kumar Daheriya versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13716/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Forest Guard in Dhariya Beat Forest Range Bandol, South Territorial Division Seoni. Initially, vide order AnnexureP1 dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests Seoni, petitioner was transferred to North Seoni (Territorial) Forest Range but on the very next date i.e. 14.7.2012 vide order AnnexureP2, petitioner has been transferred to West Chandrapur Beat Kurai (Territorial). Inter alia contending that two orders have been passed transferring the petitioner on consequential dates and further taking note of recommendations made by the Incharge Minister, petitioner has approached this Court. 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 relevan...
Smt. Meera Richhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Smt. Meera Richhariya versus State W.P.No.13774/2012 30/8/2012: Shri Dhananjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Under similar circumstances, W.P.No.1706/2012 has been disposed of with the following directions :- "Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by order dated 26.9.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15760/2011 (s).In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of the stipulations contained in Rule 6(5) of the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 as was in force before the amendment and to take a decision with regard to appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III and to communicate the decisio...
Lakshmikant Ingole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.8.2012 W.P.No.5231/2009 Shri R.P.Mishra, earned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner in the minimum of regular pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk Grade-III on 15.7.1990, since then, he is continuously performing his duties of the post of Lower Division Clerk. However, he has been deprived of minimum of regular pay scale. It is submitted that similarly situated persons have been accorded the benefit of minimum of regular pay scale. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15029/2007 (s).On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the responde...
Chouthmal Vs. State of Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Cr. Appeal No.2111/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2111/1996 Chouthmal VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.173/1992 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment in addition.2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 27.3.1992 at about 8 a.m. in the morning the victim Belan Singh...
Arun Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Arun Kumar Dwivedi versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13755/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector and has been transferred from District-Satna to District-Panna. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made on various grounds. The fiRs.ground is that on the same date, two orders have been passed vide Annexure-P1 and Annexure-P2, transferring the petitioner. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Annexure-P1 is an order passed by the State Government transferring the petitioner from one District to another, whereas Annexure-P2 is an order passed by the Collector in view of certain directions given by the local Minister granting posting of the petitioner at the same district. As the order Annexure-P1 is passed by the State Government, petitioner should comply with the requirement of the order of State Government Annexure-P1, as the order passed by the Collector has been superseded by th...
U.S. Uike Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
U.S.Uike versus State & anr. W.P.No.13728/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been transferred intermittently on more than two occasions during the last two years and now local Member of Legislative Assembly has written a letter to the Minister, Public Works Department recommending for not transferring the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six weeks and till then, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajen...
The State of M.P. Vs. Jagat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.3047/1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.3047/1998 State of M.P. Vs. Jagat Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, counsel for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Passed on 30th day of August, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T. No.136/97, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.2. The prosecutions case in short is that the deceased Ramdevi was a 15 years old girl of one Pyarelal and Munni Bai, who committed suicide o...
Lochan Singh Thakur Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.399/20130. 08.2012 Shri Riyaz Mohammad, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. The notices issued to the newly added respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7 have not been received back served or unserved. The notice sent to respondent No.5 has been received back unserved with the note that the addressee has left the address on which the notice was sent. Await service report of notices issued to respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7. Meanwhile, learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay fresh process fee for issuance of notice by registered A.D.in seven days on correct address of respondent No.5 only. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »