Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Gorelal Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.5551/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ankur Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sharda Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The grievance put forth by the petitioner is that by notice dated 28.01.2013, he has been informed that he is attaining the age of 62 years on 13.03.2013 and accordingly, he is to retire on 31.03.2013. It is contended that in the service book of the petitioner the wrong date of birth has been recorded and this being so, the action of retiring the petitioner is bad in law. It is contended that the petitioner has not attained the age of 62 years as yet. According to the documents produced by the petitioner, he has hardly completed 42 years of age. In the electoral roll, the age of the petitioner is recorded to be 41 yeaRs.In the ration card, the age of the petitioner is 35 yeaRs.The certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat indicates that the petitioner has completed 41 years ...
Rishi Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4883/20101. 04.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there are posts available for consideration of claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Director, Horticulture, but the claim of the petitioner is not being considered. It is contended that the D.P.C.is not being held regularly on account of which the case of the petitioner is not yet considered. Looking to the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today annexing with it all the relevant documents. In case such a representation is made, the said authority will look into the claim of the petitioner and will decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation. With the aforesai...
Lakhan Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 W.P.No.4728/2013 1/4/2013: Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Penal Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner was granted a quarry lease for a period of two years commencing from 1.7.2011 to 31.3.2013 by the Collector, District Panna. Petitioner was carrying out mining operation when a show cause notice dated 27.7.2012 was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer pointing out illegal storage of mineral. Thereafter proceedings were held and a punishment was imposed on the petitioner. After 7.9.2012 mining operation of the petitioner was stopped under order of the Collector. Challenge was made to the imposition of penalty mainly on the ground that Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to impose the penalty and the matter came before this Court in W.P.No.15206/2012 and vide order Annexure P/5 dated 21.11.2012 a Bench of this Court had held that the order of penalty passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 7....
Sanjeev Kumar Hanuk Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.167/2013 1.4.2013 Shri B.M.Prasad, counsel for the applicant. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. None for the respondents No.2 and 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is hereby disposed off with the direction that the applicant is free to obtain such documents with help of his right to information from the concerned bank and thereafter, he would file the documents before the trial Court and file an application before the trial Court. If he applies before the trial Court then, the trial Court shall permit him to prove such documents by calling the original record and at that time the application of the applicant shall be decided afresh. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. Certified copy as per rules. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Dhanpati Prasad Varma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4702/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ramjee Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, 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 conditions mention...
Smt. Phoolwati Singh Vs. Arun Kochar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
CONC. 1903/2012 01.04.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that the order passed by this Court dated 02.07.2012 in W.P.No.681/2012 has not been complied with, while this Court directed respondents to decide the appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of filing of application. It is submitted that the application was filed on 19.07.2012 and in spite of lapse of more than nine months, appeal is still pending. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that for deciding the appeal, the respondent has extended an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner is not causing her personal appearance so the matter has been adjourned for 8th April, 2013 and the respondent has asked the presence of petitioner at 4:00 p.m.on the said date in the office of Secretary at Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the petitio...
Kunj Bihari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 W.P.No.5727/2013 1/4/2013: Shri R.K.Samiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Collector, Singrauli, rejecting prayer made by petitioner for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge concerned. The question involved in this writ petition with regard to jurisdiction of the Collector to reject the prayer made in an application under Section 18 is already considered and decided by this Court in various cases and it has been held by this Court that Collector has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 18, it has to be placed before the appropriate Court and it is for the Court to pass orders on the said application. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 29.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.17030/2011 (Shatrudhan Lal v...
Davinder Singh Gandhok Vs. Panjab and Sind Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.10344/2010 (Davinder Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others 01.04.2013 Shri J.P.Bargainya, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents have filed I.A.No.12970/10 to bring on record the fact that the application filed by the petitioner for referring the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur has been allowed and the dispute has been referred to the said tribunal for adjudication by order dated 18.05.2009 and is pending before the Tribunal. As the issue sought to be agitated by the petitioner is already pending before the competent court and as the petitioner cannot be allowed to pursue the parallel proceedings, therefore, I.A No.12970/10 is allowed and the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the tribunal before whom the matter is pending. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
D.L. Maneshwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4841/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 conditions mentio...
Smt. Bhanwati Dubey (Dwivedi) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4852/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the amount of gratuity of husband of the petitioner was duly sanctioned way back but the said amount has not been credited in the bank account of the petitioner by the Treasury. The bank has certified that the amount of gratuity has not been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Looking to the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to look into the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the amount of gratuity has not yet been paid to the petitioner, the said amount be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of gratuity till its realization. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »