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.
Jhipuroo Gomate Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 W.P.No.1302/2013(S) 28.1.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Petitioner Daily Wager (Waterman) employed in Government Post Matric Anusuchit Jai Boys Hostel Burhanpur since 21.2.1992 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 rendere...
S.P. Chouksey Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 15142/2010 28.1.2013 Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. The petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2010; whereby, in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 60 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1971 petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of recovery of Rs.26,184/, i.e. 80% of the total amount of Rs.32,730/ being the alleged loss sustained by Corporation. Respondents on basis of order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P. No. 5092/2012 have raised an objection as to maintainability of the petition in view of statutory remedy of appeal under Regulation 67 of 1971 Regulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the remedy of Appeal under Regulation 67 and order passed in W.P. No. 5092/2012. In...
S.P.Chowksey Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 12867/2009 28.1.2013 Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. The petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.2009; whereby, in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 60 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1971 petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of recovery of Rs.11,409/, i.e. 60% of the total amount of Rs.19,015/ being the alleged loss sustained by Corporation. Against the impugned order petitioner instead of filing regular appeal under Regulation 67 filed a mercy appeal which was turned down by impugned order dated 25.6.2009. Respondents on basis of order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P. No. 5092/2012 have raised an objection as to maintainability of the petition in view of statutory remedy of app...
Prabhu Narayan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.18607/2010 28.01.2013 Mr.Balaji Akillawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 19.09.2010 passed by respondent No.3 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that period of seven years has lapsed from the date of death of deceased employee and, therefore, the same cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government by which the rider of limitation for consideration of claim for appointment of compassionate basis within seven years has been removed. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the instan...
Rafique Khan Vs. Mohanlal Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Rafique Khan versus Mohanlal Ahirwar Writ Petition No.14849 28. 1.2013: Shri Pratush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interim order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation & PO, Labour Court No.1, Bhopal rejecting an application filed by petitioner for summoning of certain documents, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent No.1 filed an application for compensation on the ground that he was employed in a factory owned by petitioner, he sustained an injury while working on 23.6.1997 and, therefore, the application for compensation was filed in the year 1998. In the said application after evidence of the workman was over at the stage of evidence of the employer certain documents were called for and learned court find that the application is pending for examination of witness of the employer since 2003 and the application for summoning of documents is filed only to delay proceedings, the application has been rejected. Discretion ex...
Bharatlal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Bharatlal Sahu versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.947 28. 1.2013: Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate, on advance notice for respondents/State. Grievance of petitioner is that, petitioner has applied for a permit on the route Jabalpur to Rewa. The application was scrutinized and according to petitioner in the web-site of Transport Department, as is evident from Annexure P-4 dated 9.1.2013, it is indicated that permission to the petitioner has been granted for the period 1.8.2012 to 31.7.2017 and even though it is indicated that permit is granted, but the permit is not given and as the result petitioner is unable to make use of such carriage permit granted. Keeping in view the grievance made by the petitioner, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits, respondent No.4 is directed to look into the grievance of petitioner and on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with releva...
Girish Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.560/2013 28.01.2013 Mr.Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner namely the respondent No.2 by which Village Library and Community Centres have been abruptly closed. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by order dated 28.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19558/2011 (s) and other connected matteRs.In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of in similar terMs.Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Prashant Pachauri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.208/2013 M.Cr.C No.208/2013 28.01.2013 Petitioners by Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri Sameer Chile, Government Advocate. This petition is preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 20/11/2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.585/2012 dismissing revision for want of appearance of the petitioneRs.In view of the fact that absence of the petitioners and their counsel was due to negligence of junior counsel who could not note the correct date of hearing in the diary, and further in view of the fact that not learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that by all means he will ensure appearance of the parties and counsel in the court of revision for presentation of his case. With a view to ensure opportunity of hearing to the parties in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 20/11/2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.585/2012 is set aside. In view of...
Smt. Munni Bai Shukla Vs. Dr. Vijay Shankar Shuklas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Criminal Revision No.2144/2011 28.01.2013 Shri Anil Khare, Sr.Advocate with Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. By this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the 4th Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in ST No.14/2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 477-A of IPC were framed. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that in the period 11.2.2010 to 27.4.2010 some compensation amount was paid to the various consumers because their crops were spoiled by hails. On enquiry it was found that some of the cases were prepared and sent to the applicant, who was the Naib Tahsildar and Incharge Tahsildar of the particular Tahsil. Thereafter he issued cheques which were distributed through various Partwaris. However s...
Shravan @ Sarvan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Cr R No.658 o28. 01.2013 Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned PL for respondent-State. Shri I. Hussain, learned counsel for respondent-objector. Learned PL submits that in compliance of the order dated 10.10.2012, he is not under receipt of the requisite report from the Juvenile Justice Board and whatsoever report he is under receipt, the same was received prior to passing the aforesaid order by this court from the office of Probationary Officer appointed under the Juvenile Justice Act. Let this matter be listed in the next week, meanwhile aforesaid report be requisitioned positively in compliance of the order dated 10.10.2012 and place before this court on next hearing. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »