Madhya Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
Ram Pyare Vishwakarma Vs. Northern Coalfield Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 Writ Petition No.13573/2012. 31.8.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of the mandamus directing the authority of the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the rehabilitation and settlement scheme 1991 in lieu of acquisition of his land for the project of the respondent. The petitioner's counsel initially argued the case at length for admission and also pointed out that his representation dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) is pending before the respondent's authority. In view of pendency of the representation (Ann. P.4).at this stage instead to admit this petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent's authority to consider and decide such representation of the petition in the lig...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamlal Gupta Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 Writ Petition No.13570/2012. 31.8.2012 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned GA for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.3.2012 (Ann. P.7) passed by the respondent No.4 licensing authority cum Conservator of Forest directing to seal the impugned Saw Mill of the petitioner on account of violation of Rule 4 enacted under the provision of M.P.Kashth Chiran (Viniyaman).Adhiniyam, 1984. The petitioner's counsel initially argued the case at length for admission but on asking him whether his representation dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-8) has been considered and decided by the authorities of the respondents, on which he submits that is still pending for adjudication before such authority. After perusing the record, in the available circumstances, instead ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Subhan Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.894 o31. 08/2012 Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Adovate General for the State. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23/09/2009 passed in Writ Petition No.10634/2005 (S) by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent and directed that his salary be revised on the post of Tractor Driver w.e.f.28/10/1972, the date on which he was promoted as Tractor Driver and after notional fixation of the pay, pension be also revised. This order is under challenged in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 28/10/1972 was passed without any authority by the then Executive Engineer, whose had issued such an order. The order had not been approved by the competent authority. Apart from this, the order was a fake order as it was not available in the office record. On being asked specifically whether there is any such an order is referred in the service book or ava...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
31.8.2012 R.P.No.651/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9842/2012 (s) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are employed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, however, in the order dated 25.7.2012 their designation has been referred to as Veterinary Field Officer. It is submitted that the petitioners claim their salary in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. However, due to typographical error the pay-scale has been typed as Rs.5000-9000/-. The aforesaid aspect has not been disputed by learned Panel Lawyer. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 25.7.2012 is modified and the designation of the petitioners referred to in the aforesaid order shall be read as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and the pay-scale shall be read to as Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Moreshwar Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13959/20131. 08.2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By this petition, the petitioners are claiming the benefit of grant of second Kramonnati under the scheme of the State Government. The question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and otheRs.in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/2008(S).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra).the directions given are as under : 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2554/2005 Pannalal and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.S.Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of August, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T.No.140/2005, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and each sentenced for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 years' rigorous imprisonment was also imposed in addition.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 23.3.2005, at about 8 p.m. in the evening, the prosecutrix (P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Khatik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
M.Cr.C.No.10674/12. 31.8.2012 Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal. The applicant-accused of Cr. Revision No.204/12 decided on 8.5.2012, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for extension of time to deposit the enhanced amount of fine in compliance of aforesaid order dated 8.5.2012 passed in Cr. Revision no.204/12. It is noted that aforesaid Criminal Revision was decided by reducing the jail sentence of the applicant under Section 325 of I.P.C.and the amount of fine was enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.7,500/- and the applicant was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within 45 days from the date of such order and in default of depositing the same, further two months imprisonment was directed. The prayer of the petitioners counsel has been formally opposed by the State Counsel. On consideration, for the reasons stated in th...
Tag this Judgment!ideal Carpets Ltd.Th:managing Director Shri Lalla Ram Maurya Vs. Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
...Cont.C.No.1303 o31. 08.2012 Smt. Sudha Pandit, Counsel for the petitioner. This application is filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent alleging disobedience of order dated 10.5.2012 in W.P.378 of 2012 by which a Division Bench of this Court directed thus :- Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Dy. Commissioner(Customs).Mandideep, Raisen on 21st of May,2012 and thereafter the said authority shall take up proceedings, hear the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law on their application preferably within a period of one month thereafter. With the aforesaid direction the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands allowed. It was submitted by the petitioner that though the representation was decided but the decision is not in accordance with law. The respondent has repeated the earlier order and has violated the order passed by this Court. In the contempt jurisdiction we cannot ex...
Tag this Judgment!Jaiwant Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.13726 o31. 08.2012 Shri Nitin Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to permit the respondent No.6 to raise further construction of the school building in front of his alloted mine. In alternate direction against respondent No.6 is sought not to make any construction of the school building on the disputed place in front of his mine. Besides this prayer for appropriate direction to respondent No.3 to decide the pending revenue case bearing not unregistered- B/125/1.12 on some earlier date is also made. In the couRs.of arguments petitioner has made his argument only for issuing appropriate direction to Tahsildar to decide the aforesaid revenue case in which order Annexure P-5 has be...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shashi Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13884/20131. 08.2012 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. The petitioner was promoted by order Annexure P-1 in the year 2008. Such an order was called in question by filing some appeal by the respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector, Katni and in the said appeal the order has been passed on 31.01.2012 setting aside the order of the promotion of the petitioner. Contending that such an appeal was not maintainable, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur but the same has been dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the operation of the impugned order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Katni, shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. List immediately after six weeks. Certi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »