Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Chandra Mohan Gore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.1375/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and on interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within seven days by registered AD. Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks. It is contended that the age of superannuation of the employees like petitioner working in the Cooperative Societies have been enhanced by making amendment in the rules from 60 years to 62 years with effect from 31.3.2012. In view of this, it is contended that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years is per se illegal. Considering the aforesaid, the operation of the impugned order dated 7.1.2012 Annexure P-1 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The petitioner be permitted to continue in the department till he completes the age of 62 years until further ordeRs.List immediately after six weeks. C.C.as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
Gram Panchayat Arkanti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
---1--- W.P.No.14559/2006 27.2.2013 Shri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. By consent heard finally. By order dated 13.04.2010 in W.P.No.1072/1997 learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the dispute is between the Gram Panchayat and another local authority, which has been entrusted with the administration and management of the fund and the property of the Maa Sharda Devi Mandir, and Respondent No.5 Shri Sharda Prabandhak Samiti is not permitting the Gram Panchayat to perform its duty. The learned Single Judge referred the dispute for adjudication by the State Government under Section 90 of the Adhiniyam 1993. In view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to refer the present dispute to the same authority. The petitioner may file appropriate proceedings before the State Government for adjudication. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim or...
Neena V. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.2267/2013 27.2.2013 Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P. Jain, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioners claim that after death of their father they have filed complaint with regard to certain irregularities committed in operation of the Bank account and dispossession of movable and immovable property and inspite of the complaint, offence is not registered by the Police authorities and contending that under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.FIR should be registered and investigation done, this writ petition has been filed. Taking note of the nature of dispute that is put forth in the writ petition it is seen that dispute is a family dispute with regard to the property of petitioneRs.father and the complaint is made against the family members with regard to the allegations made therein. Taking note of the nature of the complaint and fact that petitioners has remedy of filing private complaint where the Magistrate can...
Mandru Vs. Gendalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No ::20871. / 2012 Mandru versus Gendalal and State of MP 27.02.2013. Shri P.C.Paliwal for the petitioner. Shri L.G.S.Baghel for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Challenging an order passed by the appellate court granting injunction in a proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and interfering with the injunction refused by the trial court, this writ petition is filed by the defendant. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit in question with regard to the land situated in Village Kalathuni, Settlement No.59, Patwari Halka No.9, Revenue Circle Sanwari Tehsil Mokhed, District Chhindwara. An application for temporary injunction was filed before the trial court and the trial court found that with regard to possession of the plaintiff on the suit property, affidavits of the neighbouring farmers and agriculturists have not been filed and by recording a finding that possession of the plaintiff is not established, the prayer for i...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. V.S. Niranjan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Contempt Petition No :608. / 2007 Jagdish Prasad versus Shri V.S.Niranjan and others 27.02.2013. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar for the applicant. As the order passed in Writ Petition No.9470/2004, on 10.7.2006, is only with regard to confirmation of an award passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and as there is a specific procedure contemplated under the Act, for execution of an award passed by the Labour Court, a contempt application for the same is not maintainable, when the award in question can be executed under the provisions of the Act. In this regard the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and Another versus Sachidanand Dass and Another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465.wherein it has been held that when an order or decree can be executed in accordance with law, initiation of contempt proceedings is not necessary. In view of the above, granting liberty to the applicant to get...
L.R.Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.16813/2007(S) 27.02.2013 Shri Riyaz Mohd., learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present case is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.18640/2011 (Shankarlal Gupta and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 13.12.2012. It is contended that the petitioner too was extended the very same benefits by granting relaxation as was granted to said Shankarlal Gupta who approached this Court. The name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No.9, whereas the name of said Shankarlal Gupta was mentioned at Serial No.10 of the order dated 17.9.2007 said to be issued giving the appropriate pay scale after refixation of salary. Since the order impugned was looked into and this Court has categorically decided the controversy, it would be proper to dispose of the present writ petition in the same manner. Su...
Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal Vs. Anil Kumar Katare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No ::3072. / 2013 Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal versus Anil Kumar Katare and another 27.02.2013. Shri Nilesh Kotecha for the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be Proprietor of M/s Agrawal Motor Services having its head office in Jabalpur and an office in Katni. It is stated that a suit has been filed and the same has been decreed, and the decree is granted against M/s Agrawal Transport Company, Mission Chowk, Katni. However, in execution of the said decree against M/s Agrawal Transport Company, Mission Chowk, Katni, as petitioners establishment is being adversely affected and he is dis-possessed, objection was raised under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the objection having been rejected and the appellate court also having affirmed the same, this writ petition is filed. Even though Shri Kotecha tried to emphasize that the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has not been decided properly in accordance with law, but a perusal of the order passed by the trial court...
Geeta Bai Mishra Vs. Gayatri Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.14865/2010. 27.02.2013 Shri Dinesh Agarwal, Adv.for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.M.Lal Govt. Adv.for respondent no.5 Heard on IA No.14584/10 an application for taking documents on record. Since the documents may be helpful in adjudication of the case hence this IA is allowed. The documents be taken on record. Copy of the documents be supplied to the otherside. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants two weeks' time to file reply to IA No.2736/13 an application for vacating stay order dated 13.1.2011. By way of last opportunity two weeks' time is granted. List on 19.3.2013 for consideration of IA No.2736/13. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Abdul Kavi Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2866/20127. 02.2013 Shri Atul Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed and posted on the feeder post of Assistant Adhyapak in a school where the medium of education was Urdu. Since the petitioner has obtained his qualifications only in Urdu language, he was conveniently imparting the education. However, not since the petitioner has been promoted in Arts faculty and is being posted in a school where the medium of teaching is not Urdu, he is facing difficulty. The petitioner has made a representation for change of his posting indicating that there is a vacancy available in a school where the medium of education is Urdu and where the petitioner could be accommodated. However, since the representation is not being looked into, the writ petition is required to be filed. Since the petitioner was not specifically appo...
Dr.B.B. Khare Vs. Shri K.P. Nag
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Contempt Case No.1855 / 2011 Dr. B.B.Khare versus Shri K.P.Nag, Incharge Chief Medical Officer 27.02.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra for the applicant. Keeping in view the order passed by the non-applicant vide Annexure R/1 dated 7.2.2013, rejecting the representation of the applicant, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner the representation is rejected, he can challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, finding no case for proceeding further, the non-applicant is discharged and the application is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »