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.
Manager Ambara Colliery Western Coal Fields Limited Kanhan Area Palach ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
W.P. No. 8369 of 2013 7.5.2013 Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shoab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Order dated 26.3.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is being assailed vide this writ petition; whereby order dated 11.5.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority directing the petitioner herein to disburse the gratuity due to the respondent workman has been affirmed. Respondent, employed as Mate with the petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.6.2011. He was denied the payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as he was unable to furnish form P.S. 16 along with no dues certificate which has withheld as the respondent workman did not vacate the accommodation provided by the management. The non payment of gratuity led the workman to file an application under Section 7 (4) of 1972 Act, read with Rule 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, ...
Balram Narware Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
1 W.A.No.46/2011 Balram Narware & others State of M.P.& others 7.5.2013 Shri S.U.Baig, Counsel for appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents. I.A.No.468/2011 for condonation of delay There is delay in filing this appeal. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard with the consent of the parties, finally. This appeal is directed against an order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.5688/2010 by which the writ petition was allowed in following terms:- In view of the law laid down in the case of Hukum Singh versus State of M.P.& otheRs.2009(1) MPJR, SN 5.I.A.No.5187/2010 is allowed. Petitioners are permitted to file this petition by paying one set of Court-fee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the point involved in this petition has already been put to rest by the Tribunal long back in Madhukant Yadu versus State of Madhya Pradesh, in O.A.No.2745/1989,...
Smt. Savita Kacchi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
1 W.P.NO. 9839/2011 (S) 7.5.2013 Shri K.N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent State. Grievance putforth by the petitioner in the present petition is against nongrant of family pension in lieu of death of her husband employed as Helper on regular contingency establishment in the department of Public Health and Engineering who expired on 23.12.2010. Husband of the petitioner was initially appointed in the Public Health & Engineering Department on 1.12.1977 on daily wages. Thereafter, w.e.f. 9.2.2005 he was brought in the regular workcharged establishment as Helper. While discharging his duties as Helper on regular workcharged establishment. Husband of the petitioner died while in service on 23.12.2010. After his death, petitioner approached the authorities for settlement of retrial dues including family pension. ...
Virendra Yadav Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Writ Petition No ::17914. / 2010 Virendra Yadav and another versus JDA and others 07.05.2013. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed for the petitioneRs.Shri Himanshu Mishra for respondent No.1. Challenging the action of the respondents in not releasing 0.405 Hectare of land situated in KhaSr.No.55/3 and various other land as indicated in paragraph 5.1 of the writ petition, petitioners have filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that the land in question has been taken over by JDA for the purpose of implementing a Scheme known as Scheme No.14, and as the Scheme has lapsed by operation of time, it is stated that the land be returned back to the petitioneRs.It is the case of the petitioners that even though the land is included in the Scheme, but the Scheme has not been implemented, they are still in possession and seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from dis-possessing them, this petition has been filed. Respondents have filed reply and have tried to justify their action and it is stated...
Ramakant Swarnkar and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
W.P. No. 4003 of 2003 7.5.2013 None for the petitioneRs.Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This petition is for following directions: i. issue a writ in the appropriate nature for commanding the respondents to calculate the Pension of the petitioners under Voluntary Retirement category giving notional benefit of 5 years to actual service subject to maximum 33 years qualifying service; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to calculate the pension of the petitioners on the basis of revised payscale including giving notional benefit and, therefore, the commutation value be increased in that ratio; iii. issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; iv. Cost of the petition. At the outset learned counsel for the respondent...
Anand Rao(D) Manoki and ors. Vs. Jaganrao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
1 S.A No.281/1995 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.281/1995 APPELLANTS : ANANDRAO (Since deceased) MANOKI AND OTHERS (Legal Representatives) Vs. RESPONDENTS : JAGANRAO (Since deceased) (Legal Representatives) TIMAJ.THAKRE AND OTHERS Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellants : Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Atulanand Awasthy, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (07/05/2013) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1995 passed by the District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.14-A/93 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.07.1993 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara, in Civil Suit No.97-A/1991 whereby the suit for partition, declaration of separate possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of th...
Smt. Shanti Devi Mishra Vs. Dr. Mansood Akhtar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Conc No :2033. / 2012 Smt. Shanti Devi Mishra versus Dr. Mansood Akhtar 07.05.2013. Shri Arvind Chouksey and Shri K.K.Agnihotri for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the non- applicant. This Court on 5.7.2012, in W.P.No.1088/2008, had only directed the Collector to exercise powers conferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, decide her claim and pay compensation. Now, from the return filed by the non-applicant, it is seen that compensation has been assessed and a sum of `2,72,800/- has been paid to the applicant. As far as making reference is concerned, it is indicated that the applicant did not produce the requisite permission letter under section 18(2) before the non-applicant and, therefore, the non-applicant has not taken any action. Keeping in view the reply submitted by the non-applicant and the nature of the order passed, it is not a fit case where action for contempt can be initiated in the matter. If the applicant has any grievance with rega...
Chandrika Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
W.P.No.8757/2013 07/05/2013 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 & 8. Challenging the action of the Gram Panchayat in question proposing to construct a shopping complex and challenging the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa on 4.2.2013 vide Annexure-P2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner claims to be Principal of Chandrashekhar Azad Higher Secondary School Argat Tehsil-Ramnagar, District-Satna. It is the case of the petitioner that the Gram panchayat Argat under Janpad Panchayat-Rewa on 31.8.2010 resolved to construct a shopping complex for the purpose of increasing the income of the Panchayat. The resolution was sent to the Zila Panchayat Satna for necessary approval and sanction and the approval for construction of shopping complex along with budgetary approval in the same of ` 5 Lacs has been granted. Acc...
Nafeesa Bee Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6861 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Raising a grievance that the petitioner has No. been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement/ reply in a proceeding initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of orders Annexure P1A and P1B; (whereby the right to file written statement/reply has been closed). And direction to the Secretary, AukaafeShaahi, to give the petitioner opportunity to file written statement/reply. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from Wakf Property emanates from the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13895/2008 (M.P. Hanfi v. The State of M.P. and others).Said writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for removal of encroachment over 40 acres of Wakf Property; wherein, the Division Bench...
Shyamnath Sharma Vs. Aam Janta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Shyamnath Sharma versus Aam Janta & ORS.Review Petition No.384 6. 5.2013: Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Seeking expunging of certain observations made by this Court in W.P.No.7239/2012 vide order dated 24.1.2013 with regard to a will and the right of respondent No.8, this review application has been filed. Right of respondent No.8 with regard to the will in question was only an observation made to indicate that the order passed in the writ petition will not effect the right of any person not does it impose any restriction on the courts below where the matters are pending. The said observation cannot be misconstrued to mean that the right of respondent No.8 to the will is also considered in the order. This court has not at all adverted to consider the right of respondent No.8, the same is to be exclusively dealt with by the courts below where matters are pending. The observations made in W.P.No.7239/2012 does not have any bearing with regard to merits of the m...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »