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.
Kamlesh Kumar Dubey Vs. Deepak Khandekar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Kamlesh Kumar Dubey versus Shri Deepak Khandekar & Another Conc. No.1586 26. 2.2013: Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer for the non- applicants. The petitioner herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of 5 th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the petitioner was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5 th Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner. not the grievance of the petitioner is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the petitioner by virtue of th...
The Adhyaksha, M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam Vs. Buddhasen Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 Writ Appeal No. 786/2006 26.2.2013 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel with Ms. Surabhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri P.N. Dubey learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This Intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against an order dated 29.9.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 5644/2000 by learned Single Judge. Writ petition, at the instance of the respondents, was for direction for regularization. Initially engaged as helpers for a stipulated period on a fixed salary, the respondents on the strength of having continued for a considerable length of years, and on the basis of the decision in Rudra Prasad Mishra as also taking aid of clause 2.5 and 2.7 of Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Ke Karmachariyon/Adhikariyon ke Sewa Bharti, Sewa Sharten, Vargikaran Aur Appeal Niyam, 1...
Rashtriya Machhua Shahkari Samiti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Writ Petition No.336/2012 26.2.2013 Shri D.K.Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State/respondent nos.1, 2 and 5. Shri R.P.Kanojiya, Advocate, for respondent no.5. The petitioner is a society of fishermen. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no.3 for grant of Sunawal Patpara Dam. on lease for fishing, the petitioner submitted an application for the same. On 5.8.2010 Janpad Panchayat, Kundam, also passed a resolution for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 12.8.2010 the petitioner deposited Rs.5,000/- as lease rent. The Collector, Jabalpur, however, vide order dated 20.10.2010 cancelled the whole process of allotment of lease. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide order dated 11.11.2010 admitted the same and directed the parties to maintain status quo. But later he on an unregistered application merely on the basis of statement made by the latter that the...
Munnalal Vaishya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.13851/2012. 26.2.2013. Shri Arubendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it has been informed by the concerning authority that no proceedings are pending for confiscation of the petitioner's vesicle, therefore this petition is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.10.2012 passed by Additional Session Judge, Amarpata District Satna in Criminal Revision No.233/2012, affirming the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by JMFC Amarpata in Criminal Case No.1014/12, whereby the application for releasing the vehicle on interim custody has been rejected by the trial Court. The vehicle of the petitioner has been seized in connection of Crime No.244/12 for the offence of Section 34 (2) of M.P.Excise Act. On perusing the order of the Revisional Court it is apparent that no information regarding initiation of confisca...
Rajendra Patel Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
CRR No.896/1999 Criminal Revision No.896/1999 26.2.2013 None for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. The revision application is pending since the year 1999 and no one is appearing to argue the matter. Under such circumstances, it would be proper to consider the matter on merits. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in criminal revision No.60/1998, whereby the order dated 21.5.1998 passed by the learned JMFC, Harda in criminal case no.244/1998 was set aside. The facts, relating to the present revision, in short, are that, a prosecution was directed against the applicant and others that they had timber, without getting it in proper manner and therefore, timber was seized and a prosecution was initiated against the applicant and otheRs.One application was moved by the applicant for getting those timber articles on Supurdginama and vide ord...
Rajeshwari Singh Parihar Vs. Mr. Ashok Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Rajeshwari Singh Parihar versus Mr.Ashok Das & Others Conc. No.1023 26. 2.2013: Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned counsel non-applicant No.3. Keeping in view the orders passed by non-applicants as contained in Annexure R-1 and R-2 recalling the order of punishment dated 23.5.1994 and thereafter releasing one increment and pay fixation done, for the present, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. However, if petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to his pay-fixation or grant of further promotion after withdrawal of the order of punishment, petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, for the present, finding no case for interference, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/...
Satish Chandra Bhargava Vs. Dr. Punkhraj Maru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
CONC. No.278/2012 26.02.2013 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. It is submitted by Shri Path ak that yesterday itself a calculation sheet has been filed, calculating the dues of the petitioner, but he is not satisfied with the calculation and prays a short time. It is made clear that if proper calculation sheet is not filed on the next date of hearing, we will be constrained to impose heavy cost on the respondents. At this stage, it was submitted by Shri Pathak that so far as the payment to the petitioner is concerned, respondents shall make the payment to the petitioner before next date of hearing. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge psm...
Mohanlal Kahar Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltde.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.625/2008 26.02.2013 Shri S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Defensibility of the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6630/2007 (s) is being challenged vide this Intra-Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchyanayalaya (Khandpeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. Learned Single Judge while affirming the decision rendered by the Age Determination Committee, assessing the date of birth of the Appellant as 1.7.1948, instead of 5.11.1953, dismissed the writ petition. Appellant, having been appointed as Wagon Loader with the respondents South Eastern Coal 2 Fields limited on 31.8.1976 was later on promoted as Assistant Loading Supervisor in Clerical Grade- III in 1983. Thereafter, in 1987 he was promoted as Clerk Grade-II. In that year on 14.8.1987, the respondents circulated the personal information such as marital status, the nominees' respective date of...
Man Mohan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 Criminal Revision No.321/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.321/1997 Man Mohan VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri S. K. Dixit, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F. Act.) vide judgment dated 1.10.1996 passed by the JMFC, Lakhanadon in Criminal Case No.920 of 1992 and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.230/1996 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide 2 Criminal Revision No.321/1997 judgment dated 21.3.1997 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with aforesaid ju...
Hidar Ali Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 W.P. No.3083/2009 (s) 26.02.2013 Shri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri K. Rohan, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.4. This writ petition is directed against the action of respondents in making deduction of 50% salary of the petitioner for the purposes of payment of the same to the respondent No.4 as maintenance. It is contended that without there being any direction from the competent Court, on making application of the Scheme which was subsequently made with respect to which neither any declaration is made by the petitioner not any affidavit to that effect has been filed yet the respondents have started making deduction of 50% salary of the petitioner for payment of the same to the respondent No.4.2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment in place of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »