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.
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
WP 4772.10 Writ Petition No.4772 of 2010(s) (Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and others v. State of M.P.and two otheRs.24-01-2013 Shri S. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. Heard. Orders dated 20-11-2003, 06-07-2006 and 02-08-2007 are being challenged vide this writ petition. Vide these orders petitioneRs.second kramonnati which were extended to them have been withdrawn and the pay of the petitioners have been revised with a direction to recover the excess amount paid to petitioneRs.Initially appointed in the cadre of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer the petitioners were granted the benefit of second kramonnati pay scale Rs.5500-9000 on completion of 24 yeaRs.w.e.f.19-04-1999 by order dated 10-10-2003. The petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.30-09-2005 and 30-06-2006 respectively. After the retirement, by impugned orders dated 06-07-2006 and 02-08-2007 kramonnati pay scale of Rs....
Sanjay Kumar JaIn Vs. Branch Manaager Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
W.P.No.20436/2012 24/1/2013 Shri Subodh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Seeking extension of time to deposit the amount due and payable to the respondent Bank in accordance to the settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat held in the District Court, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner had taken loan from the respondent Bank and a dispute had arisen with regard to repayment of the same. The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat which was held on 11.6.2012 and after due negotiation a settlement is arrived t in the Lok Adalat as is evident from Annexure P/2 the settlement to the effect that the amount to be paid by the petitioner to the Bank was assessed at and agreed to be Rs.15 Lacs and it was further agreed that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 Lac as the sum of Rs.80,000/- was already paid. The remaining amount of Rs.14,20,000/- shall be paid by the end of September 2012. It seems that thereafter petitioner did deposit some amount but as the entire amount of Rs.14,20,0...
Ram Kumar Pathak Vs. Raj Kishor Swahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1 Conc. No.895/2011 Ram Kumar Pathak & others Raj Kishore Swahi & others 24.1.2013 Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for respondents No.1,2,3 & 4. Shri Ishan Mehta, Counsel for respondents No.5 & 6. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel submits that as per his instructions, SLP has not been filed in the Supreme Court. However, it is in the stage of preparation and it is expected to be filed in near future. It is also submitted by him that for the compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.734/2008 dated 18.7.2012 and Review Petition No.773/2012 dated 8.10.2012, respondent No.3 has already proceeded in the matter. As there are 259 persons who have been settled there, they are not required to be shifted to some other place and in this regard, respondent No.3 has already directed the concerned Tahsildar to search out the place where these persons can be shifted. It is submitted that within a period of two months, these persons will be shif...
M/S New Bhopal Textile Mills Vs. Praveen Kumar Channa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 21636/2012 24.1.2013 Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Heard. Order dated 20.11.2012 passed by Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Bhopal is being assailed vide this petition. By impugned order the Controlling Authority in an application under Rule 10 (1) of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 filed by respondent No. 1 has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner employer as to maintainability of the application. Vide application in question, the respondent No. 1 has claimed the difference of gratuity arising due to enhancement of Ceiling of Gratuity to Rs.10 lacs. As having voluntary retired under modified voluntary scheme w.e.f. 16.7.2009, the respondent No. 1 was paid Rs.3,50,000/ towards gratuity. The ceiling was later on enha...
Ramesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.1968/2009 Ramesh, son of Chaitram Degarse (Pawar), aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Chhabadi, P.S. Mohkhed, Distt. Chhindwara Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Mohkhed, Distt. Chhindwara Respondent .. Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, P.L. for respondent-State. JUDGMENT (24/1/13) The appellant, though charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, stands convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years. Corresponding judgment dated 8.10.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.26/09 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. As indicated already, the appellant is a resident of Village Chhabadi whereas, at the relevant point of time, Yadorao (since deceased) was living with his wife Kaushibai (PW3) in Village Shakkarjhiri.3. Prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus (i) On 5/12/08 at about 9 ...
Ku. Gazala Nasira and ors Vs. the Union of India and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Second Appeal No.577 / 2002 (Ku. Gazala Nasira & ors....Vs.Union of India & another) 23-01-2013 Heard Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1-7-2002 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in C.A.No.29-A/2001, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-7-2001, passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal, in C.S.No.120-A/2000, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the forefathers of the appellant/plaintiffs were using a plot on which a house stands since long which was gifted to the appellants in the year 1976 by their grand mother and since then they are in peaceful possession of the property and access to the same from the South side is through a passage adjacent...
Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
W.A.No.1391/2012 23.01.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing. We are not inclined to go into the entire controveRs.raised before us. In view of the admitted fact that the returned candidate who has been elected during the pendency of the petition has not been joined as a party to the petition. The law is well settled in this respect by the Apex Court in the case of Jyoti Basu versus Devi Ghosal AIR 198.SC 983. In the circumstances, the writ petition could not have been decided without hearing the returned candidate. The order passed in W.P.No.17672/2012 is recalled and set aside and the writ petition is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the matter in accordance with law after permitting impleadment of the returned candidate. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. (...
Praveen Kumar Vs. Raghunath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 C.R. No.14/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.14/2013 APPKICANT: Praveen Kumar, S/o Gopal Tilanye, Aged about 32 years, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Multai, District Betul (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS: (1) Raghunath, S/o Jagannath Ghorse, aged about 69 years, R/o Civil Lines, Tapti Ward,Tahsil Multai, District Betul, M.P. (2) The Rent Controlling Authority, Multai, District Betul, M.P. Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Rawat learned counsel for the respondent No.1 . Shri Rahu Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (23.01.2013) 1. This revision application under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act of 1961) has been filed by the tenant-applicant Praveen against the eviction order dated 12.12.2012 passed by 2 C.R. No.14/2013 Rent Controlling Authority in case No.22-B/121/12-13.2. No exhaustive statements of facts are required ...
Kamla Kant Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No.3726/2011 23.01.2013 Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. MRS.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner had appeared in the eligibility test conducted for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak-Grade II in the year 2008. As per the rules of examination, the age of the candidate should not be less than 21 years and should not be more than 35 yeaRs.Sub-rule 6(7) of the Rules contemplates that the age of the candidate has to be calculated with reference to 1st January of the calendar year, on which the advertisement is issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had worked as part-time teacher from July 1999 to March, 2000 and from July 2000 to March, 2001, which is evident from the certificate dated 04.03.2010 issued by Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Tikamgarh. It is further submitted tha...
Ghasiram Deharia Vs. Anakhlal Deharia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :971. / 2013 Ghasiram Deharia & another versus Anakhlal Deharia and others 23.01.2013. Shri L.M.Tripathi for the petitioner. Petitioners are plaintiff and have filed the suit in question for permanent injunction, declaration and confirmation of possession. The defendants have also filed reply and based on the pleadings, a dispute has arisen with regard to execution of a registered sale-deed dated 18.9.1989. Respondents 1 and 2, who are defendants, contend that petitioner No.1 by affixing a thumb impression has sold the property by registered sale-deed dated 18.9.1989, whereas the petitioners deny execution of the sale-deed. To resolve the dispute, respondents filed an application for getting the thumb impression in the sale-deed dated 18.9.1989 examined by a Finger Print Expert and this application under section 45 of the Evidence Act having been allowed, petitioners are before this Court. The discretion exercised by the Court in the matter of permitting examination of...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »