Madhya Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments
Bhagyoday Teerth (Dharmarth Trust) Vs. Munnalal Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Bhagyoday Teerth, Dharmarth Trust, Sagar versus Munnalal Jain Writ Petition No.19226 28. 9.2012: Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents, as no notice have been issued. However, challenge in this writ petition is made to an award passed by the Labour Court and not from I.A.No.12856/2012 it is seen that the parties have been entered into settlement and the said settlement is filed as Annexure P-11. In view of settlement entered into between the parties, the award in question be modified in accordance to said settlement and be implemented not in modified form in accordance to settlement. From the affidavit of the petitioner and the workman it is seen that award has been implemented as per settlement and workman has filed affidavit indicating that he satisfied with the settlement entered and made communication in this regard. In view of the above the award shall not be implemented in the form as ordered by the Labour Court, but it shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Kanaujia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16430/12 (Arvind Kumar Kanaujia versus State of MP and otheRs.28.09.2012 Heard Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents/authorities No.3 to 6 are constructing a canal through the petitioner's land as well as the land of Gram Panchayat Deori, Karaiya and Narwar in Maihar District Satna which would infact adversely effect the interest of the entire population of the area and would not be in public interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner along with others have filed representations before the authorities bringing to their notice the aforesaid fact as well as the fact that the educational institutions and other institutions of the village would be demolished as a result of the construction of the canal but the representations filed by the petitioner before the respondents no.2 and 3 have no...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mangalwati Bai Vs. Chief Managing Director, Coal Estate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Smt. Mangalwati Bai versus Chief Managing Director & ORS.Writ Petition No.7742 / 2012 (s) 28.9.2012: Shri Ravi Shanker Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shir Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on advance notice. Petitioner is the wife of respondent No.4, who was working in the establishment of respondent Nos.1 to 3, as a Tub Loader. It seems that there is some dispute between petitioner and her husband and certain proceedings are initiated by petitioner for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.the same is pending in the court of competent jurisdiction. As respondent No.4 has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, his post retiral claims are being settled by his employer, namely respondent nos.1 to 3, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Interalia contending that post retiral claim should be paid to petitioner, as respondent No.4 is refusing to maintain her. Accordingly contending and claiming post retiral claim of her h...
Tag this Judgment!Pyare Lal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 Cr. A. Nos.383/97 & 565/97 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.383/1997 Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.565/1997 Pyarelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A Usmani, counsel for the appellants in Cr. A. No.383/1997. Smt. Durgesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant in Cr. A. No.565/1997. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28th day of September, 2012) This judgment shall govern the disposal of above mentioned criminal appeals since the impugned judgment in both the appeal is a common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against 2 Cr. A...
Tag this Judgment!Ajmer Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.12111/2012 (Ajmar Kol versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 28.09.2012 Heard Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that his claim for pension under the State's Scheme for Social Security Pension has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tikatkala, Tahsil Churhat, District Sidhi on several occasions, but his application has not been forwarded to the Jandpad Panchayat for decision and his representation before the Collector has not yielded any result. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is apparent from a perusal of the Scheme filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition that the petitioner has to move an application, which shall be decided by the Janpad Panchayat. There is nothing on record to indicate that the application of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Raid
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.No.2494/2012 28.09.2012 Shri Dinesh Koshal, Advocate for appellant. Heard on IA No.10709/12, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Office has shown delay of 139 days in filing of this appeal. Since the delay is inordinate, so notice of this application (IA 10709/12) be issued to respondents by ordinary mode as well as by registered AD post. Steps be taken by the appellant within seven clear working days. Notices be made returnable within four weeks. Record of the Court below be also called. Also heard on IA No.9767/12, an application for stay of execution of impugned award dated 4.1.12 passed by Ist Addl.Member MACT, Sehore in MCC No.1/10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant. He submits that if the proceedings are not stayed, this appeal will become infructuous. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is directed that on further deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.F...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Sangeeta Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panc ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.P.No.734/12 28/09/12 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This review application has been filed for correcting an interim order passed by this Court on 7/09/12. The writ petition is still pending and the only correction sought for that the place of posting of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the order passed on 7/09/12. If that be so, petitioner should file an application for clarification in the pending writ petition so that necessary orders can be passed. It is not possible to consider the same in a separate review application as the petitioner can always move an application in the pending writ petition. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the pending writ petition. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Govind Narayan Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16088/12 (s) 28/09/12 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working in the Janpad Panchayat Rewa and has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Rewa to Janpad Panchayat Mauganj. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner in this regard is pending and the question of inconveniences expressed by the petitioner are to be considered and appreciated by the competent authority of the department, without entering into the controveRs.on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents before the competent authority of the State Govt. within one week from today, the said authority shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo with regard t...
Tag this Judgment!Archana Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Archana Nigam. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16397 28. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner witho...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Fariha Farooqui Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16037/2012 (Smt. Fariha Farooqui versus The Barkatulla University) 28.09.2012 Heard Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/University to grant extension of the period for completing Ph.D.to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she had filed a representation for extension of the aforesaid period before the university on 07.12.2011 but no decision thereon has been taken till date. It is stated that the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Chancellor who has remitted the matter back to the Vice Chancellor of the University by letter dated 23.07.2012 for a decision on the petitioner's application for extension of the period for submitting the thesis for Ph.D which incidentally had been filed beyond the period prescribed by the old ordinance for filing such an application. It is subm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »