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.
Rajaram Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
3 Writ Petition No. 1972 Of 2012 10.5.2013 Shri Adarshmuni Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Shri Sudhakar Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. With consent matter is heard finally. The pleadings though voluminous, the arguments even lengthier, controversy, however, lies within a narrow compass and the facts even shorter. Having retired as Accountant, from the office of Controller, Printing and Stationary on 31.5.2002, the petitioner's Death cum Retirement Gratuity was not settled. Reasons being two fold, firstly, that, there was some error in respect of computation wherein the personal pay was No. added while calculating the dearness allowance prevalent at the relevant time to arrive at a gross income for computation of D.C.R.G and secondly, an assumption having been drawn the petitioner has been proceeded against from...
Siyalal Kachi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :20241. of 2011 Siyalal Kachi and others - V/s - State of MP and others Writ Petition No :13947. of 2011 Anand Tiwari and others - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In both the cases: Shri Vivek Rusia, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.D.Jain, Advocate General, alongwith Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for Respondents 1, 2 and 3. Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate, with Shri Himanshu Mishra for respondent No.4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 10/05/2013 PetitioneRs.who are land-owners and are residents of Village Bujbuja and Dokaria situated in Gram Post Dokaria, District Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni, have filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition of land being undertaken by r...
Anturam Gawle Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :891. / 2013 Anturam Gawle versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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 C...
Arvind Singh Chouhan Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :993. / 2013 Arvind Singh Chouhan and others versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicants. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA for the respondents. The applicants herein are working as teacher and their grievance 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 applicants was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicants. not the grievance of the applicants 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 applicants by virtue of the acceptance of...
Gopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No.3083 10. 5.2013: Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel with Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the State. They are heard on the application for vacating stay I.A. No.5698/2013 filed by the State Government.2. Arguments on the aforesaid application for vacating stay was heard by this Court on 8.5.2013, but taking note of certain facts that have came on record it was directed to be listed today along with records of W.P. No.22140/2012. The arguments were heard again today and on going through the records it is seen that with regard to acquisition that had taken place, the petitioners herein have filed this writ petition through Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate. This writ petition was filed before the court on 25.2.2013 by Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate and when matter came up for hearing on 1.3.2013, notices were issued and status- quo with regard to possession was directe...
Smt. Geeta Gupta Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :894. / 2013 Smt. Geeta Gupta versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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 Pa...
Smt. Kiran Thakur Vs. Sanjay Singh Thakur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
1 M.C.C No.1358/2009 Smt. Kiran Thakur versus Sanjay Singh Thakur. 10.05.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Paritosh Trivedi learned counsel for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is observed that the applicant has prayed for transfer of Civil Suit No.41-A/09 pending before District Judge Balaghat to District Court Mandla on the ground that the applicant is a disabled person and is, therefore, unable to move. It is however, observed from the disability certificate filed by the applicant, Exhibit A-3, that her great toe has been amputated resulting in unstable gait. This is the only disability which she is suffering which in my considered opinion would not impede in her attending the proceedings pending before the District Judge, Balaghat. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant be awarded cost for attending ...
Harinarayan Sahu Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :893. / 2013 Harinarayan Sahu versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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 Pa...
Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
---1--- W.P.No.1219/1998 10.5.2013 Petitioner Dr.P.G. Najpandey present in person. Shri K. Pathak, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.1 and 5. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3. None for Respondent No.4/Jabalpur Development Authority. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel and Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sushil Mishra learned counsel and Shri S. Rao, learned counsel for the interveners/dairy owneRs.It is submitted by Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3 that he has filed compliance report today in the office. Shri Singh, is directed to supply a copy of the same to all the parties. It is further submitted by Shri Singh that a long term planning has been made by the Municipal Corporation and it is to be tabled before the House of Municipal Corporation and, thereafter, the same is to be sent for approval of the Government. Therefore, he prays for a short time to place the said scheme be...
Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :935. / 2013 Anil Kumar Tiwari versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »