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.
General Manager M.P.A.M.R.i. Vs. Kemlibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Review Petition No ::457. / 2013 General Manager, MPAMr.and others versus Kemli Bai and others 10.05.2013. Shri D.N.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar for the respondents. This application has been filed for review/correction of the order-dated 30.4.2013, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7909/2013. Even though this Court had allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the appellate court vacating the original injunction granted by the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court for proceeding further in the matter. It is pointed out by Shri D.N.Shukla that the appeal of the petitioner before the appellate court was not decided on merits, it was decided on technical grounds and, therefore, if not the injunction granted by the appellate court while deciding the appeal on technical grounds is being vacated and the injunction granted by the trial court is being restored, then the question of continuing with the injunction granted by the ...
Surya Pal Trivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
3 Writ Petition No. 7062 Of 2008 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...
Ajay Gangwar Vs. Western Central Railway
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
1 W.P.No.7336/2013 Ajay Gangwar Western Central Railway & others 10.5.2013 Shri Maninder S.Bhatti, Counsel for petitioner. None for respondents, though an advance copy has already been served to Shri Govind Patel, Advocate. Petitioner has sought following refiefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith carry out measurement through an independent technical committee of the work as mentioned in the petitioner's representation dated 30.8.2012(Annexure P-6) and representation dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P/10) by an independent Committee before issuing fresh tender for the alleged remaining part of the work. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner has prayed for various reliefs in the petiti...
Shobha Kashyap Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :1871. / 2012 Shobhya Kashyap and others versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Pankaj Dubey, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA, for the non-applicants. 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 the 5th...
Arti Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
W.P.No.8296/2013 10/5/2013 Shri Gambhir S. Dikhit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. From the record it is seen that the fiRs.appeal filed by the petitioner bearing No.53-2012/2013 filed under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam 2010 is pending before respondent No.5 the appellate authority, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.5 the Appellate Authority in accordance to Adhiniyam of 2010 is directed to decide the appeal in accordance to law after hearing all concern within a period of 30 days as stipulated under the statutory provision. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Smt. Sukwariya Dhurve Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :924. / 2013 Smt. Sukwariya Dhurve versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri S.R.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 ...
Smt. Shakuntala Shukla Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :929. / 2013 Smt. Shakuntla Shukla 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 5...
Jitendra Shrivastava Vs. Secretary, His Excellency the Governor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
W.P.No.8229/2013 10/5/2013 Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging an order dated 5.1.2013 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the mercy appeal filed under Article 161 of the Constitution, this writ petition has been filed interalia contending that a mercy appeal filed under Article 161 of the Constitution read with Rule 775 of the Jail Manual, cannot be rejected by the Secretary of the State Government, it has to be considered and decided by the Governot and without reference of the mercy appeal to the Honble Governor, action taken by the Secretary of the Department for dismissal of the mercy appeal is unsustainable, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was prosecuted and tried in Criminal Case No.147/98 for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302/120 I.P.C.and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Seeking his release on mercy on the grounds as are indicated in the ...
Shaligram Mishra Vs. M.P.Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
1 MCC No.414/2013 10.05.2013 Shri Parag Tiwari learned counsel for the applicant. Shri J.K.Pillai learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court, Delhi versus State of Gujarat and otheRs.(1991) 4 SCC 406.T. Sudhakar Prasad versus Govt. of A.P and OtheRs.(2001) 1 SCC 51.and Pallav Sheth versus Custodian and otheRs.(2001) 7 SCC 549.the learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to withdraw this application with liberty to file an application seeking invocation of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India vested in the courts for disobedience and contempt of the orders passed by this Court. With the aforesaid liberty, the MCC stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Antram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :8971. of 2013 Antram and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. Parashar, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 10/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possession of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »