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.
R.R. Chaurasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
W.P.No.2856/2009 28.02.2013 Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a document has been filed vide covering memo dated 28.02.2013 indicating that the miscellaneous advance shown against the petitioner has been finally adjusted. Office is directed to place the said document on record. Learned Deputy Government Advocate is granted a week's time to seek instructions on this memo and to address whether after adjustment of the miscellaneous advance, any recovery could be made from the petitioner without conducting an enquiry or giving a show cause. A copy of the order be made available to learned Deputy Government advocate to communicate the same to the respondents. List after a week. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Sharad Kumar Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 W.P.No.1236/2013 28.01.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State Petitioners by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in lieu of they having acquired Bachelor of Education/ Diploma in Education/ Basic Teachers Instruction)(B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) qualification while in service. The aforesaid relief has been claimed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Asha Saxena V. State of M.P and otheRs.SLP (Civil) No.18881/06 wherein the claim of Assistant Teachers appointed prior to 16.6.1993 for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring (B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) was upheld (In respect of grant of two advance increments it has a relevance because w.e.f 17.6.1993 relevant rule for recruitment of teachers provided for B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI as an essential qualification for appointment).It has been held in Asha Saxena (supra...
Pramod Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
WP 641.13 Writ Petition No.641 of 2013 (Pramod Kumar Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and four otheRs.28-01-2013 Petitioner in person. Petitioner seeks quashment of Enquiry Report dated 09-08-2012 and the letter dated 29-11-2012. That the petitioner, Sub-Engineer in Public Works Department has been subjected to departmental enquiry under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In the said enquiry, Enquiry Officer has furnished the enquiry report returning his finding on the charges levelled against the petitioner. This as per the provisions contained under Rules 14 (23) of 1966 Rules. The disciplinary authority while agreeing with the findings has caused a notice to the petitioner on 29-11-2012 as is contemplated under Rule 15 of 1966 Rules and the decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : AIR 199.SC 471. Though the petitioner submits that he has been victimized and defective procedure has been followed in the enquiry causing grave prejudi...
Shubham Kanojiya Vs. Authorised Officer, Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Shubham Kanojiya & ORS.versus Probationary Officer & Anr. Writ Petition No.931 28. 1.2013: Shri H.R.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenging an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and contending that the action taken in unsustainable, this writ petition has been filed. Challenge in this writ petition is made to action initiated under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and recently a Bench of this Court at Gwalior has held that orders passed under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is subject to statutory appeal and revision as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act and, therefore, a writ petition directly without exhausting remedy of appeal is not maintainable. In this regard reference is made to the judgment rendered in ...
Jahid HussaIn Vs. Mohd.Hussain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
F.A.No.220/2007 28.01.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.13253/12, appellants' application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned decree dated 22.2.2007, so far it relates to payment of Rs.2000/- per month as mesne profit. It is noted that initially the impugned decree was passed on dated 22.2.2007 whereby at that time no decree with respect of the mesne profit was passed but subsequently during pendency of this appeal in this regard vide order dated 11.10.2012, the impugned judgment and decree was amended and modified whereby in addition to earlier passed decree, the above mentioned sum of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of judgment till delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed house as mesne profit has been directed. At the initial stage of filing the appeal, vide interim order dated 30.3.2007, operation and execution of the then impugned decree was staye...
Union of India Vs. Malkhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
M.C.C.No.1418/2012 28.1.2013 Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate, for the respondent. The petitioners have filed the present application for extension of time to comply with the order dated 29.8.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.12831/2012 by the Division Bench of this Court. The operative part of the order dated 29.8.2012 reads as under: Thus, while affirming the conclusion drawn at by the Tribunal that it is beyond the powers of the Appellate/Revising Authority to inflict the punishment of removal from service after retirement of respondent. We, however, modify the order and remit the matter to the appellate authority for taking recouRs.to the procedure as is prescribed under Rule 9(2) of Pension Rules, 1972. Let the same be done within a period of three months from the communication of this order. In the result petition is allowed to the extent above. Parties to bear their own costs. For the reasons stated in the application and also w...
Laxman Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.869/2012 Laxman Singh & another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay K. Sharma, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 29th day of January, 2013) The applicants have challenged the order dated 2.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in special case No.43/2010.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the dead bodies of the deceased Chandan Singh and Khalak Singh were found on 18.4.2011 near village Tindua (Police Station Batiyagarh, District Damoh). Their motorcycle was also lying at the spot. The police had registered a case because death of the deceased appeared to be homicidal. After so...
Ajay Shankar Garg Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Ajay Shankar Garg versus State Bank of India & Anr. M.C.C.No.1258 28. 1.2013: Shri Anuj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.9338/2005 and restoring it to its original number on the ground that it has been dismissed for want of prosecution due to non- appearance of counsel of petitioner. A perusal of order dated 8.5.2012 goes to show that petition is not dismissed, infact it has been held to be infructuous with the passage of time and, therefore, dismissed on the ground that it is infructuous. Once the petition is dismissed on the ground that it is rendered infructuous, the petitioner has to seek review/recall of the order and restoration of the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, finding the application to be not maintainable it is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek review/recall of the order passed. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
ideal Carpets Ltd. Office at Rajnagar G.T.Road, Gopiganj, Distt. Bhado ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 W.P.No.16467/2012 Ideal Carpets LTD.Union of India & others 28.1.2013 Smt.Sudha Pandit and Shri Pritam Jaiswal, Counsel for petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Counsel for respondents. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P/10 dated 20.6.2012 by which a provisional assessment order has been framed against the petitioner. For ready reference, we quote the entire order which reads thus:- Consequent upon the order dated 10.05.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of M.P.at Jabalpur in WP No.378/2012, the importer M/s Ideal Carpets Ltd was personally heard on 21.05.2012. The importer contended during hearing that goods have been in ICD for more than 12 months. The condition of the imported cargo has been deteriorated considerably and value should be assessed considering this fact and assessment as well as clearance should be done accordingly. In their written submission they requested that the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of MP at Jabalpur in WP No.378/2012 may be complied with...
Laxman Singh Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Laxman Singh versus The Collector & ORS.Writ Petiton No.863 28. 1.2013: Shri Arvind Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Interalia contending that respondent Nos.4 to 7 have illegally entered into the land of petitioner and are trying to kill the petitioner, committed assault on him, this writ petition is filed complaining that F.I.R.of the petitioner is not registered by the police and no investigation into the matter is taken. Records indicate that civil suit between the parties is already pending before the competent court at Jabalpur and the material available on record does not show that it is an appropriate case where extraordinary power available to this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is exercised. If F.I.R.is not registered and police is not taking action, petitioner can file a private criminal complaint and seek interference into the matter. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »