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.
Ramsevak Dubey Vs. Chhannulal Chamar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.12597 o30. 08.2012 Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission as well as IA No.10225/12, an application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the appellate court's, returnable by fixing a date within one month be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The case be listed accordingly on such date so mentioned on the aforesaid notices. As an interim measure till next hearing, the parties are directed not to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the disputed property or any part of it unless the order of this Court. Besides the aforesaid the trial court is directed to proceed with the suit but shall not pass any final order or judgment unless the order of this Court. C...
M/S Agrawal Construction Company Vs. Shri Vijay Singh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.08.2012. Shri Shekhar Sharma for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 29.2.2008, passed in Writ Petition No.2478/2008, refund of the amount of royalty is made today vide Account Payee Cheques of State Bank of India, bearing Nos.64134 and 044110, for `1,27,428/- and `2,69,170/- respectively, which has been handed over to Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. In view of the above, for the present no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case, applicant has any further grievance subsisting with regard to quantification of the amount of royalty, liberty is granted to claim the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, this application stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2467/1997 Ramesh Kumar and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K.Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.15/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE FINE DEFAULT SENTENCE 45 and 148 of 2 years' R.I. for Rs.1,000 for 1 month's IPC each count. each count R.I. for each count 324 read with 3 years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's section 149 of S.I. IPC.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 2.8.1993, the deceased Jeevanlal was worki...
O.P. Lodhi Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
O.P.Lodhi versus State & anr. W.P.No.13762/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Steno Typist in the office of District Registrar, Narsinghpur. By the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred to Hoshangabad. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is shown to be transferred at his own request, whereas petitioner has No. made any request. The second ground canvassed is that transfer is made in violation of the transfer policy. Both the grounds raised by the petitioner are not such on the basis of which, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. If the respondents have committed mistake without their being any request from the petitioner for his transfer. Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the detailed representatio...
Shyamlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue Dept. Mantralaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.13200 o30. 08.2012 Shri Laljee Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, learned Govt. Adv for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The presence of respondent No.2 is not required in the matter. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (the same appears to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) for issuing an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 15.3.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the respondent No.3, Additional Commissioner, Bhopal in Revenue Case No.15/Revision/09-10 directing to issue fresh notices to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 of such revision as the earlier notices were not served on such respondents. I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that the impugned revision is pending before the aforesaid Court of Upper Commissioner in connection of the partition case of the agricultural land. In view of such submission, I am ...
Harish Chandra Vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Writ Petition No.13445/12. 30.8.2012 Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner no.2 in the same manner as was given to Moti Lal and Narayan Das in lieu of Acquisition of land for the project of the respondents. After taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record, petitioners counsel submits that in view of resettlement and rehabilitation policy, the petitioners were entitled for the employment under the project of the respondents in lieu of Acquisition of their land but inspite of making all efforts by approaching to the respondents, the petitioners could not get success in getting such employment. On the contrary, their claim has been refused saying that the name ...
Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.13248 o30. 08.12 Shri Vinot Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for the respondent No.2 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of order dated 26.7.12 passed by Ist ADJ.Satna in MCA No.8/12 whereby setting the order dated 22.6.12 passed by III Civil Judge Class-I Satna in Co.No.26-A/12 dismissing the application of respondent No.1 filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC by allowing such IA in part, the petitioner has been directed not to create any third party interest with respect of the disputed property till pendency of the suit. Having heard, after perusing the papers placed on the record along with the averments of the petition, I am of the considered view that besides the impugned order of the appellate court , in view of the provision of section 52 of t...
Shakuntala Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13475/2012 29.08.2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal ...
Sheshrao Koshe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.7217/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Pathak submits that by mistake no communication could be made to Inspector General of Police for filing affidavit as was directed on 04.07.2012, however, he prays 10 days time to file affidavit of Inspector General of Police. Considering that, earlier on two occasions, we directed respondents to file affidavit of Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad in respect of efforts made by the respondents to trace out Ku. Poonam Koshe, the police have failed to produce the corpus. In this regard, we allow further time to file affidavit, of Inspector General of Police till 4.9.2012. The Inspector General of Police shall duly verify the earlier steps taken in this regard, case diary and progress in the matter and shall specifically state about his satisfaction to the efforts made by the police to trace out Ku. Poonam Koshe, for production of he...
Beni Bai Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.13218/2012 29/08/2012 Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she has attained the age of superannuation on 31/10/2011 and has retired from service but she has not been paid the amount of leave encashment of the leave created in her account on the other hand the said benefit is granted only for 128 days leave whereas according to her, there was 240 days leave credited in her account. It is contended that as per the rules, the petitioner was entitled to the encashment of 240 days earned leave credited in her account. The benefit of encashment of remaining leave has not been granted to the petitioner despite making of representation therefore she has come before this Court. It is not in dispute that an employee on attaining the age of superannuation and in the event of retirement is entitled to get the leave encashment of earned leave up to...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »