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.
Smt. Shalini Chandler Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Smt. Shalini Chandler versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :969. 13. 05.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, 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 Pay...
Smt. Sushila Timothy Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc Case No :970. / 2013 Smt. Sushila Timothy 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 ...
Munna @ Laxmi Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Munna @ Laxmi Kurmi versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No :4880. 13. 05.2013. Shri Manish Awasthi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Challenging the order Annexure P-2 dated 24.8.2012 passed by the District Magistrate Damoh and the order Annexure P-1 dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division exercising powers for externment of petitioner from various districts under the M.P.Rajya Surakhsha Adhiniyam, petitioner has filed this writ petition. On 24.12.2007, the Superintendent of Police, Damoh submitted a report on the basis of which a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Immediately thereafter indicating involvement of petitioner in 10 criminal cases, it was pointed out that because of his criminal activities, he is proposed to be removed from district in question. Out of 10 cases indicated in the show-cause notice, 9 cases were for the period 1994-2006 and the 10th case was of the yea...
Mahendra Kumar Tiawai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
W.P.No.6666/2013 13/5/2013: Ms.Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Records indicate that certain objections filed by the petitioner with regard to acquisition of area in question particularly the land belonging to the petitioner as detailed in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ petition is pending before the Collector respondent No.2 and in that view of the matter for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to take note of the objection and representation of the petitioner and decide it in accordance to law before proceeding to acquire the land and dispossess the petitioner. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Mrs Tanushri Mandal Vs. Deputy Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::9056. / 2013 MRS.Tanushri Mandal versus Dy. Director, ESIC and others 13.05.2013. Shri Anoop Shrivastava for the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that challenge in this writ petition is made to an order passed by the competent authority under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).and the order is passed exercising jurisdiction under section 45-A, of the Act. When the determination of contribution is made under section 45-A, an appeal is provided under section 45-AA. Any order passed making assessment of contribution under section 45-A is subject to appeal under section 45-AA and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available, as indicated hereinabove, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA M...
Omprakash Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
W.P.No.9138/2013 13/5/2013: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Considering the fact that a representation in the matter of granting benefit to the petitioner is pending before the respondents No.2, the Collector and respondent No.4 the Tahsildar, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the said authorities are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P/2 within a period of two months. Till the matter is not decided as directed herein above, no coersive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Gulab Shankar Ghode Vs. the State Bar Council of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 19943 Of 2012 13.5.2013 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3. Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. I.A. No. 994/2013 and 1399/2013 are taken up for consideration. Whereas I.A. No. 994/2013 is at the instance of respondent No. 1, I.A. No. 1399/2013 has been filed by respondent No.3 for vacating the stay order dated 29.11.2012. Petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2012, passed by Secretary, M.P. State Bar Council; whereby, ad hoc election committee has been constituted to get the election of Bar Association Multai conducted. The said order has been questioned on the anvil that it is beyond the power of the M.P. State Bar Council to appoint an ad hoc committee for conducting the election of Bar Association. While admitting the petition on ...
Parasnath Dubey Vs. Shri Manoj Khatri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.560/2012 13/5/2013: Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that all the orders passed in the writ petitions have not been complied with and benefit of the order has not been granted, petitioners have filed this writ petition. All the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of on the very fiRs.day taking note of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.The cases were disposed of without notice to the State Government and not it is pointed out that the benefit accruing to the petitioners have not been granted. Even though notices have been issued it is intimated by Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 has been transferred and he cannot No.make compliance of the order. In the case of all the petitioners different orders have been passed and therefore, action has to be...
Padamdhar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::8361. / 2013 Padamdhar Singh versus State of MP and others 13.05.2013. Shri D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Taking note of the order passed under similar circumstances in Writ Petition No.964/2012, on 23.1.2012, as contained in Annexure P/6, Collector is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner also in accordance to the same order and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Rohit Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Vs. A. K. Nagpure
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
C.R.No.488/2010 (Rohit Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit versus A.K.Nagpure and otheRs.13.05.2013 Heard Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.483-A/08 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the respondent/applicant which is a cooperative society. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of section 94 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act the respondent No.1 was statutorily required to serve and deliver notice to the Registrar giving details of the cause of action and the relief which he seeks to claim and that they should have made a specific statement in this regard in the plaint. It is sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »