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.
Shyam Lal Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13575/20131. 08.2012 Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued by the competent authority for recovery of the claims of the petitioner from the respondent No.2 and the said revenue recovery proceedings are pending consideration before the Collector, Rewa for a long period. Though there is no stay or any other restraint to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate but a long period has lapsed and still the recovery has not been made. The representation to this effect was made but as nothing was done by the respondent No.3, the writ petition is required to be filed. This Court has observed in many of the cases that in case Revenue Recovery Certificate is issued by the competent Labour Court or other authorities, it is the responsibility of the recovering authority to make the recovery of t...
Nisha JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
REVIEW PETITION No.583/20131. 08.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 26.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.6821/2010. It is contended that the issue was already covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.841/2010 (S) decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court but that decision was not brought to the notice of this Court and because of that reason, the order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.6821/2010 on 26.06.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The order passed by the coordinate Bench is placed on record. After examining the order in W.P.No.841/2010(S).decided on 21.01.2011, it is clear that dispute was squarely covered and it was held by this Court that the insistence of the registration in the employment exchange on the date of application was not necessary. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 26.06.2012 ...
Ku.Pushplata Salve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13604/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, 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 W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is 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 mentione...
Santosh Kumar Nema Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 Writ Petition No.15688/2005 31/08/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents. The dispute involved in this petition boils around the question whether benefit extended by the State can be withdrawn with retrospective effect even after extending such benefit for a long time to the employees and whether any recovery could be ordered ?. The fact remains that petitioner was granted the benefit of certain scheme of granting higher pay scale on completion of particular years of service. The petitioner has fulfilled the prescribed conditions and because of that the order was issued in her respect. Subsequently the impugned action was initiated stating that under the circulars of the State Government, such benefit was withdrawn and the recovery was to be made from her. This being so,the impugned order was issued on 25/08/2005 which was called in question in this writ petition. While entertaining the writ pet...
Ramsewak Vs. Nathooram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.13387 o31. 08.2012 Shri Abhijeet Bhomik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashment of the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Beena in execution Case No.69-A/2008 dismissing his application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The order passed on the application of Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC is treated to be a decree of the Civil Court as per provision of Order 21 Rule 103 of CPC and in such premises, it comes under the purview of decree defined under Section 2 (2) of the CPC, which is made appealable initially under Section 96 of the CPC. In this regard on making some query from the petitioner's counsel on which instead to argue, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file regular appeal under Section 96 of the CPC to challenge the impugned order, (Ann. ...
Smt. Shanti Bai Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Writ Petition No.13596/12. 31.8.2012 Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 2.7.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Civil Judge Class-II, East Nimar Khandwa, dismissing his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC whereby, the prayer for dismissal of the suit till the extent of respondents no.7 to 9 on account of defective power of attorney, was made. In the couRs.of arguments on admission on asking the petitioners counsel whether in the written statement of the petitioner such objection was taken on which, he fairly submits that such objection has been taken in the written statement on again asking whether the issues in the matter have been framed by the trial Court, on which he submits that the case was fixed for framing the issues but he is not in a positio...
Alok Tiwari Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P No.13490 o31. 08.2012 Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.10883/12, an application for grant stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October 2012 be issued to the respondent No.1 - plaintiff only, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The aforesaid notice is not directed against respondent No.2 because he was co-defendant with the petitioner in the trial court. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of the C.S.No.15-A/12 pending before the IInd Additional Civil Judge to the Court of Ist Civl Judge-II, Jabalpur is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Smt. Raju Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13834/20131. 08.2012 Shri D.S.Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has challenged the action of initiating the process for recruitment/appointment on the post of Warden in Girls Hostel. The scheme has been made by the competent authority to appoint a Warden in Girls Hostels and the woman teachers working in the department are to be selected and appointed by a committee. It is contended by the petitioner that earlier an order was issued by the respondent Collector on 28.04.2012 giving charge of the post to the petitioner and after taking over the charge of the post of Warden, the petitioner is performing the duty satisfactorily. There was no occasion to initiate the process of making appointment of any other person on the said post, which is already occupied by the petitioner. The order of posting of petitioner as Warden is examined. The petitioner was given additional charge of the post of Warden since she was ...
Smt.Aradhana Vs. Pradeep Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (First Appeal No.116/2008) Smt. Aradhana Vs. Pradeep Mishra PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate Counsel for Respondent Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate O R D E R (31/8/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.1.2008; whereby, the Family Court Bhopal has dismissed the appellant's suit for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1958.2. The appellant and respondent were married on 12.5.2001. The marriage was solemnized at Bhopal. The appellant thereafter lived with her husband, the respondent at his abode at Rewa for a month and thereafter came back to Bhopal. Thereafter living at Rewa for three years with the respondent, th...
Bhagwan Das Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13634/2012 31.08.2012 Shri M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, 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 W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is 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 i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »