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.
K.L. Arya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5616/2013 01.04.2013 Shri Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notices of this writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended that the petitioner was not granted the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.4,000-6000/- with effect from 19.7.1996, instead the said benefit was granted to the petitioner sometime in the year 2000. However, the direction has been issued for recovery of the said amount after making the calculation with effect from the month of January 1996 as is clear from the statement annexed with Annx.P/3. In view of this, it is contended that the petitioner would be put to financial loss and serious inconvenience in case the recovery is allowed pursuance to the impugned order dated 11.3.2013. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that on furnishing an undert...
Jhunnilal Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.20055/20101. 04.2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. It is contended that the issue involved in the present petition is already settled by this Court in the case of Smt. Rani Gangrade versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.Against the order of learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was preferred by the respondents-State before the Division Bench of this Court, being W.A.No.587/2007, State of M.P.and others versus Smt. Rani Gangrade, which came to be decided on 04.12.2009. Against the order of the Division Bench of this Court, S.L.P.was preferred by the respondents-State in the Supreme Court, which too has been dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the writ appeal of the respondents-State has held thus : 2. On an earlier occasion original petitioners and number of others have filed original applications before the State Administrative Tribunal a...
Kanhaiyalal Mirchandani Vs. Omprakash Lakhera
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.4196/2013 01/04/2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order Annexure-P1 dated 20.2.2013 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II Bhopal in Civil Suit No.42-A/2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is tenant and is facing a suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the grounds contemplated under Section 12 (1)(a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Petitioner has filed his statement and is resisting the suit. The issues have already been framed and examination of plaintiff is already over. While cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff, an application has been filed for production of certain documents namely Rent Note, Income-tax Return and particulars of alternate accommodation available. That apart, another application under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C for framing of additional issues has also been filed. Both these applications have been rejected, therefore, the peti...
Rampati Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4704/20101. 04.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The controveRs.involved in the present petition is with respect to grant of benefit of Fundamental Rule 22- D in case of grant of promotion on regular basis. This Court in the case of R.S.Sikarwar versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(3) M.P.L.J.397, has taken note of the law laid-down by the order passed by the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena versus State of M.P.(O.A.No.224/1992).and has reached to the conclusion that even if regular promotion is granted on the post carrying the same pay scale, which was granted by virtue of release of Kramonnati, still the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D would be available to such an employee. In view of the law laid-down by this Court in the case of R.S.Sikarwar (supra).the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner, make proper fixation of his salary and pay him all ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ved Prakash Grover
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 A.R.No.9/2012 State of M.P.& another Ved Prakash Grover 1.4.2013 Shri Amit Singh, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Manot Sharma, Counsel for respondent. I.A.No.4052/2013 for extension of time for compliance of the order dated 6.3.2013 It is submitted by the petitioners that because of receipt of the copy of order dated 6.3.2013 on 14.3.2013, the order could not be complied with within a period of one week as directed by the aforesaid order. It is prayed that further three days time may be allowed for compliance of the order. Prayer is not opposed by the respondent, hence it is allowed. Petitioner is allowed further three days time for compliance of the order dated 6.3.2013. Be listed for hearing in the 1st week of May, 2013. C.C.today. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) Judge Judge C....
Jagdish Prasad Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2484/20101. 04.2013 Shri N.K.Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sharda Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. In the present writ petition a claim for payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues is made by the petitioner on the ground that in earlier writ petition this Court has passed an order on 16.04.2007 directing the respondents to pay the invalid pension to the petitioner within a period of three months. The said order was brought to the notice of the respondents but nothing was done and ultimately Contempt Petition No.1472/2007 was filed before this Court. In the said contempt petition when the notices were served on the respondents, an oral statement was made on 19.12.2008 that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. The said contempt petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to assail any order, if passed against the petitioner. However, even after disposal of the said contempt petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›