Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Rajesh Lilhare Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::7971. / 2013 Rajesh Lilhare and others versus Union of India and others 13.05.2013. Shri Pradeep Naveriya for the petitioneRs.Shri Govind Patel for the respondents. Petitioners claim to be owner of various pieces of land situated in Samnapur, District Balaghat. It is stated that for the purpose of laying down of a railway line, land of the petitioners was acquired. Contending that as per the policy formulated by the respondents/Railway Administration, compassionate appointment has to be granted to persons, from whom the land was acquired and further submitted that the claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with Circular Annexure P/11 dated 16.7.2010 is not being considered, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel appears for the respondents and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment in accordance with policies and circulaRs....
Gourishankar Gour Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.510/2012 13/5/2013: Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by the respondents considering and deciding the claim of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure R/1, for the present it is not appropriate for this Court to proceed further in the matter. However, if actual monetary benefit accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the order Annexure R/1 has not been granted, the same be granted to him within a period of two months. Thereafter, if petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he may initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with law. Accordingly, for the present finding no case for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceeding and the application disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Maa Shakti Salini Mahila Mandal Satna Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Maa Shakti & Others versus Union of India & ORS.Writ Petition No :2252. 13. 05.2013. Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. In a scheme formulated by Government of India for rehabilitation of child labour detected from various places a project namely the National Child Labour Project (NCLP) has been introduced in various districts through out the country. The scheme is required to be implemented through a registered society under the Chairmanship of administrative head of the district. For the purpose of rehabilitation of children certain guidelines have been issued and schools and rehabilitation centres are to be opened for the said purpose. Proceedings were held, offers were invited and it is not in dispute that the petitioneRs.establishment were granted the right to run certain schools and rehabilitation centres, petitioners are running the said centres. not fresh tender notices dated 4.2.2013 and 5.2.2013 has been...
Smt. Joyce Dong Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc Case No :968. / 2013 Smt. Joyce Dong versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 13.05.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th 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 applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant 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 applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5...
Hitkarni College of Engg. and Technology, Vs. the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
W.P.No.13427/2012 13.5.2013 Parties through their counsel. I.A.No.7019/2013, for issuance of direction to the respondents for declaration of the result of 1st Semester B.E.CouRs.2012-13 and to permit the students to prosecute their studies for IInd Semester. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the petitioner that Petitioner/Institute was granted recognition by the respondent. Students of the petitioner/institute had duly appeared in the examination scheduled for the academic session 2011-12 but for the academic session 2011-2012, the petitioner/institute has not been granted recognition by AICTE. However, by interim order issued by this court on 16/8/2012, the students were permitted to prosecute their studies and by subsequent order dated 12/12/12, permitted the students to appear in the B.E (Engineering) examination. not it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the academic session 2013-12 AICTE had granted recognition. Students are prosecuting their studie...
Chhotelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::8568. / 2013 Chhotelal versus State of MP and others 13.05.2013. Shri R.K.Patel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 22.4.2013 passed by the learned court below closing the right of the petitioner to lead evidence, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question. The suit is pending since 2002 and for a period of more than 11 years petitioner has not even bothered to enter the witness box and give evidence. Repeatedly the case was being adjourned for recording of evidence and when on 22.4.2013, the case was listed for evidence, records indicate that petitioner or his counsel were not present when the case was taken up at 11.00 AM. Thereafter the case was again taken up at 1.45 PM, when the case was again adjourned. Subsequently, at 4.00 PM, the counsel filed an application signed by himself without any document or evide...
Smt. C.V. Lal Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc Case No :973. / 2013 Smt. C.V.Lal versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 13.05.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th 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 applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant 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 applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th ...
Kumari Gouri Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
---1--- W.P.No.1886/2013 13.5.2013 Shri Niranjan Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, leanred Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to attend the Classes of Fourth Semester. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not declared the scheduled for conducting the examination of Second Semester. On raising such contention, it is submitted by Shri Kaurav that so far as conduction of examination of Second Semester is concerned it will be arranged in the month of June-July, 2013 in which petitioner shall be permitted to appear, provided all the formalities are completed. So far as prayer of the petitioner for attending the Class of Fourth Semester is concerned, as the petitioner has not cleared Second Semester, so she is not entitled to attend the Class of Fourth Semester. As at present petitioner has not cleared Second Semes...
M/S Gvpr Engineers Limited Vs. Mppkvvcom.Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
---1--- W.P.No.6832/2013 13.5.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vikas Mishra, learned counsel and Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate that in this case show cause notice for determination of the contract was under challenged, but the petitioner had approached to the respondents for grant of some time to complete the work. The respondents have extended the period, but with certain conditions. It is submitted by him that as the period has already been extended, the show cause notice has lost its efficacy and the petitioner has been permitted to continue with the work, however with certain conditions. It is further submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the conditions imposed for liquidated damages at an appropriate sta...
Gagan Singhai (Jain) Vs. Pramod
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
S.A.No.287/2013 (Gagan Singhai and others versus Pramod ) 13.05.2013 Shri Jaideep Shirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 08.03.2013 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.07-A/13 whereby the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Parasia District Chhindwara in C.S.No.33-A/10 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellants has been decreed. After arguing at length and failing to succeed therein, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants be granted five months' time to vacate the premises. The prayer made by the appellants is accepted subject to their furnishing an undertaking within fifteen days before the trial court that they shall keep the accommodation in good state, pay rent by 15th of each m...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »