Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Sanjay Kaduskar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16076/12 (s) 24/09/12 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. In view of the fact that petitioner is claiming regularization and office of respondents is situated in Bhopal and in many other cases petitions have been entertained in Principal Seat by virtue of orders passed by the Honble Chief Justice, office objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction is over ruled. Petitioner is working as daily wages employee in the respondents department since 5.8.91 and has completed more than 10 years of service and regularization is claimed on the ground that juniors have been regularized and on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are dir...
Bhola Alias Bholu Vs. Gulab S/O Omkar (Dead) Th:lrs, Shanta Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Writ Petition No.14617/12. 24.9.2012 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by Third Civil Judge Class-II, Sehore in Misc. Judicial Case No.3/11, whereby his application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of the Civil Original Suit No.38A/94, dismissed in default on 14.7.1994, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments in view of provision of Order 43 Rule 1 (c) of CPC in which such order is made appealable on making certain query on which, she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appropriate miscellaneous appeal before the appropriate Court to challenge the impugned order Annexure-P-1. Considering the aforesaid prayer, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order Annexure-P-1 to the counsel of the petitioner b...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gayatri Bai Belia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.A.1124/2009. 24.09.2012 Shri Aditya Narayan, Sharma, for the appellant . Shri Sandeep Koshta, Adv.for respondents no.1 to 7. None for respondents No.8 and 9 though served. Heard on I.A No.3082/09 an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Office has shown delay of 223 days in late filing the appeal. Since claimant's appeal for enhancement is bearing no.20/09 in which appellant has to be heard as respondent so it seems proper to give an opportunity by allowing the aforesaid I.A . Averment of this application is supported by an affidavit of Sandeep Jha Legal Manager of the Company. Aforesaid I.A is allowed and the aforesaid delay is hereby condoned. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant respondents No.1 to 7 are directed to supply copy of I.A 12312/09 to learned counsel for the appellant . List for consideration of I.A 12312/09 in the week commencing 1.10.2012 alongwith MA No.20/09 for analogous hearing. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Dallu Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15756/2012 (Dallu Maravi versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri A. Shrivastava, 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/authorities to conduct an enquiry into the complaint filed by the petitioner as well as the report submitted by the person incharge of the Primary Health Centre, Chowki to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Seoni by letter dated 07.10.2010. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. G.A.appearing for the State on advance copy submits that the aforesaid aspect shall be looked into by the respondent/authority concerned in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Seoni to look into the matter and deal with the same, in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. To ena...
Bharat Niswade Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.9467 o24. 09.2012 Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In view of listing the matter for hearing on admission, IA No.11218/12, an application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ to quash the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Annexure P-11. The same is RRC No.191/09-10. Having heard, on perusing the same, it appears that recovery of the impugned RRC is being made by the respondent No.2 to recover the sum of the loan granted to the petitioner by the bank which has been amalgamated in the respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is undisputed legal position that to challenge the RRC or its basic order the remedy is available to the petitioner under the provision of M.P.Land Revenue Code a...
Bhole Nath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15520/2012 24.09.2012 Shri I.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. 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 discu...
Shiv Prasad Shah Vs. Smt. Sukhwanti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.A.1088.10 24.09.2012 Shri Y.P.Sharma, Adv., for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 to 6 . Smt.A.Ruprah, Adv.for respondent N0.7. Heard on I.A No.2673/10 an application for staying of the execution of award proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Waidhan District Sidhi vide order dated 24th December 2009 in Claim Case No.40/2008 has awarded Rs.3,74,000/- . He further submits that he has deposited Rs.1,62,000/- before the tribunal on7.12.2011 and stutatory amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been deposited so he has complied with the order dated 20.5.2010. Hence aforesaid I.A is allowed and order dated 20.5.2010 shall continue and executi0n of the remaining amount of award shall remain stayed . Matter has already been admitted and record has also been received. List for final hearing in due course. C c as per rules. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Smt. Saroj Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15529/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, 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 mentioned in the c...
Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.13448/2012 (Bajaj Capital versus State of M.P.& ors.) 24.09.2012 Heard Ms.C.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed b...
Mrs. Faizan Sagar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15853/2012 (MRS.Faizan Sagar Mishra and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities in the intimation given by them in respect of the threat to their life and registration of false cases. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and the other respondents/authorities to look into the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate steps in respect of their grievance and also provide necessary protection, if so required. To enable the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and the other respondents/authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served upon them by the petitioneRs.With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »