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.
Shyam Kishore Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
WRIT PETITION No.21477/20120. 2.2013 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Challenging the action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of pay fixation under Fundamental Rule 22-D, the petitioner, who is the retired Principal, has filed this petition. The petitioner was holding the post of Principal. He was appointed on the post of Lecturer and subsequently was granted Kramonnati and thereafter promotion on the post of Principal. The pay fixation was done granting the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D. After retirement when the said benefit was withdrawn, the amount of Rs.52,441/- was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that there was no mis- representation by the petitioner while pay fixation was done and the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D was made available. However, such recovery was ordered against the petitioner. It is contended that such issues have already been looked into by this Court i...
Deepak Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2424/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within three days, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile, it is directed that if any appointment is made to the post of contract School Teacher Grade-III, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Let the petition be listed alongwith W.P.No.2427/2013 for analogous hearing. Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC....
Uday Singh Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.792/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 5. Shri Atulanand Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. This petition has been field purportedly in public interest against the election of Board of Directors of Prathmik Krishi Shakh Shahkari Samiti, Jaswantpura held in January, 2013. According to the petitioner, the election was a farce since most of the nomination papers were rejected and only some nomination papers were considered to be valid which resulted in unopposed election. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the election held in January, 2013 and this Court on 16.1.2013 granted stay to the further proceedings as a result of which the body elected in 3.3.2007 continues to hold office under the extended terms which continues up to 3.3.2013. Shri Singh further submitted ...
Liladhar Koshta Vs. Shri P.C. Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 Conc. No.295/2013 20.2.2013 Dr. Anuvadh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court in a writ petition and a writ appeal has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Writ petition and Writ Appeal were filed by the State Government challenging an award passed by the Labour Court exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding held under the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, proceeding came to this Court in the writ petition and Writ Appeal where challenge was made to an award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act. not on the ground that writ petition and writ appeal have been dismissed, award has attained finality and the award is not being given effect to, this application for initiating action for contempt has been filed. Merely because the Writ petition and Writ Appeal against the award was dismissed, that does not mean that action for contempt can be initiated. For...
R.K. Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2350/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Anirudh Hingwasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate for the State/respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to pay the bills regularly without the condition of procurement of not from mining department. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus the respondents be directed to refund all amount illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed. (iii) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus respondents be directed to implement the judgment already passed by this Honble High Court. (iv) Any other relief/order/directions which this Honble High Court may deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of this Court in W.P.No.1...
Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Review Petition No.108/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Swapnil Ganguli, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of typographical error in the order dated 29.1.2013, the number of the writ petition has been incorrectly mentioned as W.P.No.20363/2012 whereas the same should have been mentioned as 12705/2012. It is further submitted that the petitioner is posted as 'Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Badi, district- Raisen' whereas in the order dated 29.1.2013 it has been mentioned as Chief Municipal Officer, Badi, District Raisen'. It is also submitted that in the order passed in the writ petition it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Council Parasiya District Chhindwara whereas the petitioner has been transferred to the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Parasiya, district Chhindwara. It is further submitted that ...
Smt. Jharna Saraf [Handicapped] Vs. the Commissioner [Handicapped Cour ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2150/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.I.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a physically challenged person seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent No.1 has made recommendation to the respondent No.2 for appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. However, no action by the Collector has been taken in this connection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Annexures P/1 and P/4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she be granted time to submit a representation and the Collector be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitio...
Anand Kumar Dubey Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.1854/2009 (S) 20.02.2013 Mr.Sameer Beohar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has challenged the validity of the order dated 23.5.2009 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was working muster roll employee and was engaged on 7.9.1984. The father of the petitioner died on 19.11.2001. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of appointment on compassionate basis on 22.12.2001. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order taking into account the circular dated 18.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in fact when the application was submitted, the circular dated 1.3.1994 was in vogue under which the p...
Mrinal Pathak Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.13047/2012 20.2.2013 Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel with Shri Sanjay Patel, for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adikari, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging certain conditions imposed by the Indian Oil Corporation in the matter of fixing the criteria for allotment of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) this writ petition has been filed. An advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for grant of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) in village Tidni between Stone National Highway 12A distance 84 to 86 km. The advertisement is Annexure P/2. According to the petitioner the said area is situated in District Mandla and petitioner has certain land which is situated in Village Aamtola which is on the same area, i.e.Kms 84-86 km in National Highway 12A. It is stated that as in the advertisement the village is indicated as village Tidni and petitioner's land is situated in village Aamtola, petitioner's application is not being considered. Challenging fixation of area by referen...
M/S Dayal Das Arjun Das Vs. Smt. Draupati Bai Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.1507/13 20/02/13 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a defendant in the suit for eviction filed by the respondents. In the said suit, an application for amendment filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been allowed in part and as part of the application has been rejected, therefore this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent Smt. Draupati Bai Agrawal a senior citizen, more than 76 years of age has filed the suit in question for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 12 (1) (f) and Section 12 (1) (m) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act. In the said suit, a written statement has been filed by the petitioner and after filing of the written statement, petitioner wanted to implead certain new pleading and incorporate certain amendment. The application has been allowed in part but certain averments made by the petitioner with regard to the earlier suit having been dismissed...
- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »