Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Sarju Prasad Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.17016/13 07.10.2013 Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (1) To issue suitable writ/directions directing the respondent no.2 to get the lands of the petitioner demarcated as in terms of the application made by him. (2) To issue suitable writ/direction to take suitable action on the representation made by the petitioner and punish the official found guilty Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments advanced, taking into consideration that on behalf of the petitioner an application to carry out the demarcation of his land described in the application (Annexure-P-3) was filed in the Court of Tahsildar on dated 10.9.2009 and the requisite sum was also deposited vide challan dated 16.9.2009 (Annexure-P-4) even on asking by the Tahsildar, t...
M/S Orchha Travelles Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.17055/13 07.10.2013 Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant-intervenor The Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company on whose behalf I.A.No.14128/13 ,permitting it to intervene in the matter has been filed. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- Bus Operator, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (1) The Honble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the illegal demand notice as contained in Annexure-P-4. (2) The Honble Court may kindly be also pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to decide the presentation within a reasonable time and to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before determining any tax against the vehicles of the petitioner In the couRs.of arguments I am appr...
Dr. K.D. Shakya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
W.P.No.16960/2013 04.10.2013 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents/State and waives service. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents contends that since only a limited prayer is made by the petitioner directing consideration of his representation, if such a prayer is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be decided in appropriate manner. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Nisha Tiwari when the seniority list was prepared, it was found that the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion on the post of Principal Degree college. That being so, the review D.P.C.was held in which he has been found fit and accordingly he is promoted by order dated 29.08.2008. However, while issuing the order of promotion, the petitioner has been denied the monetary benefit by the said order, though...
Jitendra Kuamar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.15979/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Manoj Kumar Pande, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the c...
Anita Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16631/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioner. It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioner. This Court in the case of M...
Heeramani Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
W.P.No.16660/2013 04.10.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Claiming interest on the E.D.F.as per the statutory rate fixed, petitioner has filed this petition. It is seen from the records that in the case of Anil Jain versus Managing Director, M.P.S.R.T.C., reported in one I.L.R.2008, M.P.Series Pg, 1392, it was directed that retired employees who have served with the Corporation are entitled to get interest on the amount deposited by them under the E.D.F.Scheme as per the statutory interest prescribed in Clause 10 of the State Road Transport Corporation Employees Deposit Fund Regulation, M.P.1985. The aforesaid judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court by the Indore Bench has been upheld and W.A.No.636/07 has been dismissed. Thereafter, various cases have been decided and this Court in various cases have directed the Corporation to grant interest to the employees in accordan...
Chedi Vs. Smt. Sona Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 W.P.No.16331/13. 4.10.2013. Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013 (Ann. P.1) and order dated 12.7.2011 (Ann. P.3).passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Rampur District Satna in C.O.S. No.167-A/10, whereby the issue No.6-A and 6-B regarding valuation and court fees were decided and the petitioner was directed to value to the suit on the basis of market value of the house and the shop under construction and Dharmashala and pay the court fees accordingly by the earlier order and later order his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the suit for additional prayer for possession of the same property have been dismissed. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record argued that in the available circumstance of the case the petitioner has valued the suit on the basis of...
Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16534/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the cas...
Lakshapati Prasad Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16536/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and ...
Mayank Tiwari Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
W.P.No.6432/2013 (Mayank Tiwari..versus Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal & another) 04-10-2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition stating that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the school record is 5-10-1990 and even at the time when the petitioner appeared in the IXth Class Board Examination in the year 1990, the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal issued the enrolement card in which the petitioner's date of birth was shown to be 5-10-1990. It is further stated that even in the certificate of Middle School Examination, issued by the District Education Officer, on 18-6-2012 the petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned as 5-10-1990, however, on account of a mistake on the part of the petitioner committed while sending information to the respondent/Board mentioned his date of birth as 5-10-1991 instead of 5-10-1990, the respondent/Board has is...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »