Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Beer Bahadur Vs. Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 437/2012 28.1.2013 Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri P.C. Chandak, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Heard. Petitioner, retired Security Guard from Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, seeks direction to the respondents to consolidate the account No. MP 1208/600 and M.P. 1143/8199 and release the amount due therein. Respondent Nos. 1 on being noticed has filed return; wherein, it is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 that: 3. It is respectfully submitted that on verification of records maintained with the answering respondent it revealed that from the P.F. a/c No. MP/CG/1208/600 an amount of Rs.944.50/ was transferred to P.F. a/c No. MP/1267/271 on 07.04.1982 and further from MP/ 1267/271 provident fund accumulation to the tune of Rs.40,471/ was transferred to P.F a/c No. MP/1143/8199 on 17.09.2002.4. It is respectfully submit...
Dr. Mini Verma Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Dr. Mini Verma versus Sanjay Singh and ORS.Conc. No.165 28. 1.2013: Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and taking note of the order passed on 18.10.12 in W.P.No.12300/2012, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt. Infact this Court had not atall inclined to interfere into the order of transfer but passed an order granting some breathing time to the petitioner, not in the circumstances explained no case is made out for initiating action for contempt, when prima facie the transfer order was found to be in accordance to law, and called for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, this application is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Dadol Vs. Dadunath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Dadol versus Dadulaal & ORS.Writ Petition No.22003 28. 1.2013: Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Teonthar, District Rewa, rejecting an application filed by petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a commission. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for specific performance and in the said suit an application filed for appointment of commission for demarcation has been rejected. A perusal of order passed by the court below goes to show that the application has been rejected on the ground that already a report of demarcation is available and at the very outset even without recording of evidence, the commission cannot be appointed. Discretion exercised by the learned court and reasons given for rejection of application cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an ext...
Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Sakttar Nai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.18643/2010 28.01.2013 Mr.Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court had rightly granted the relief of backwages to the extent of 50% from the date of filing of application for reinstatement of the respondents in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co.LTD.versus Rajendra, AIR 201.SC 198. In view of aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to examine the legal position in this regard. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the couRs.of next week. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Keshav Prasad Nag Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.12518/2010 28.01.2013 Mr.A.N.Giri, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia seek a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment and to grant increment, regular pay scale and seniority. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.7236/2006 (s).In view of aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.7236/2006, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners produce the certified copy of the order passed today, the respondents shall settle the claim of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certi...
Chandraeshwar Rai Vs. Western Coal Field Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
WP 10770.12 Writ Petition No.10770 of 2012 (Chandreshwar Rai v. Western Coal Fields LTD.and five otheRs.28-01-2013 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. With consent petition is heard finally. Correction of date of birth in service record is being sought by the petitioner that, instead of 1-7-1953 it be recorded as 2-1-1955. Presently, a Mining Sirdar, Ambara Sub Area, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Kanhan Area, Chhindwara, petitioner was initially appointed on 11-4-1975. That on passing 6 examination he was awarded Gas Testing Certificate on 17-06-1980 and Mining Sirdar Certificate on 27-11-1980 under Mines Act. It is contended that having gathered the knowledge petitioner came to knot that on the basis of approximated age recorded in the B-Form his date of birth has been recorded as 01-07-1953 contrary to the date of birth recorded in School Leaving Certificate; Gas Testing Certificate and Mining Sirdar Certificate as ...
Jayant Mahurkar Vs. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
WP 6800.12 Writ Petition No.6800 of 2012 (Jayant Mahurkar v .M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Bhopal and another) 28-01-2013 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Himanshu Misra, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Petitioner, retired Sub-Engineer, vide this petition seeks direction to respondents for settlement of entire retiral dues as per his entitlement. Facts giving rise to controveRs.which hampered the settlement of dues, in nutshell are that initially engaged as Muster Clerk in the year 1973, the petitioner was brought on Work Charge Establishment as Sub-Engineer whereon he was regularized on 09-02-1988. Later on in the year 1999 he was served with a charge sheet on 12-12-1999 alleging that at the time of entering in service he suppressed the facts of being prosecuted for an offence under section 147 and 248 of Indian Penal Code and under section 147, 224, 225, 336, 353 and 452 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.284/1978 and 288/1978...
Tarkeshwar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.81/2013 Tarkeshwar Pandey..Petitioner Versus State of M. P. through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, JabalpurRespondent For the petitioner : Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate. Present : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE U. C. MAHESHWARI . ORDER (28.1.2013) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.The petitioner, aggrieved with his prosecution in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lokayukt, Jabalpur, vide Special Case No.02/2008 for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, has filed the present petition for quashing its proceedings. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Special Judge whereby his objection against prosecution without prior sanctio...
Deepak Agrawal Vs. Akhil Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.201/2013 M.Cr.C No.201/2013 28.01.2013 Petitioners by Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate. This petition is preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 25/02/2012 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in Criminal Complaint case No.1192/2011 dismissing the case of the petitioner under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, for want of appearance in regular Lok Adalat. At the outset without entering into merits of the case and on the assurance of the learned counsel for the petitioner in future petitioner and his counsel will show their utmost sincerity in appearance in the court, this petition is allowed without issuing notice to the respondent and Criminal Complaint No.1192/2011 be restored at the stage of 25/02/2012 in the following terms:- (1) In view of the fact that in Lok Adalat normally if matter is not settled it is sent back to the regular court for consideration, hence, dismissal of the complaint case was not proper. (2) Petitioner/complainant undertakes to remain prese...
Jai Kumar Thakasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 W.P.No.1301/2013(S) 28.1.2013 Shri R.K.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Petitioner Daily Wage (Waterman) employed in Government Pre Matric Girls since 23.06.1995 vide this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant him regular pay scale in the light of circular dated 17.3.1978. It is urged that on the basis of aforesaid circular daily wage employee engaged in Tribal Welfare Department has been extended the benefit vide order passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanubai V. State of M.P and otheRs.decided on 27.8.2011 by Division Bench of this Court at Indore. It is contended that respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision rendered in Dhannubai (supra).Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents have no objection if direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as per decision rendered by Division Bench of this Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »