Madhya Pradesh Court June 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. Betibai Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.9672/13 (Smt. Betibai Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Shri Sanjay K. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. By filing the present petition the petitioner, who is working as an Instructor/Supervisor, submits that her case be disposed of in the light of and in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 15.12.2010 in W.A.No.596/10. The aforesaid order has been quoted in the order passed by this court in W.P.No.5660/13(S) decided on 10.04.2013 Annexure P/3. Looking to the fact that the directions in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) appear to be general in nature, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents/authorities in terms of and in the light of the order passed in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) by filing a representation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition f...
Smt. Archana Gupta Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.6343/2011 28/06/2013 Shri Deepak Pendharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned GA for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ State. Shri Vibudhendra Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. As the relief claimed for by the petitioner can be granted only if a review petition pending before this Court i.e.R.P.No.600/2012 is allowed and result of the order passed in the review petition will have bearing to the present writ petition and also W.P.No.21210/2011, it is thought appropriate to direct the office to list these writ petitions along with the review petition i.e.R.P.No.600/2012 before the same bench, where the review petition has to be listed as per roster. (Rajendra Menon) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge nd...
Lochan Singh Tilgaon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10835 / 2013 (Lochan Singh Tilgaon ..versus State of M.P.& others.) 28-06-2013 Heard Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. From a perusal of the petition it is seen that in an identical petition i.e.W.P.No.10060/2013(s) this Court by order dated 10-6-2013 has held that the representation of the petitioner was decided by the concerned authority by order dated 23-5-2013 mechanically and the impugned order is not a speaking order. This Court with the aforesaid observation has disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order in view of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2264/2013 decided on 15-2-2013 and till then the interim arrangement made by this Court in W.P.No.2264/2013 by order dated 15-2-2013 was directed to continue to remain in operation. In view of the aforesaid order dated 10-6-2013 passed by this court in W.P.No.1...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Kaliya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10504/2013 State of M.P. & Ano. vs. Smt. Kaliy28. 06.2013 Heard Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State. The petitioner/State has filed this petition being aggrieved by award dated 26.4.2012 by which the respondent, who was working as a Gangman and was superannuated on completing 30 years of service, has been reinstated with 50% back wages from the date of the award and has also granted 12% simple interested per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment of 50% back wages. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State that the respondent has rightly been superannuated on her completing 30 years of service in view of the circular of the State Government dated 7/14.12.2001 but the court below has not considered the aforesaid aspect. Having heard the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, it is observed that the issue raised by the State is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court ren...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fujistu Optel Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR I.T.A. No.80/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus Fujistu Optel Limited, Mandideep, Bhopal (M.P.), B-6, New Industrial Area, Mandideep, Bhopal. I.T.A. No.81/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus Fujistu Optel Limited, Mandideep, Bhopal (M.P.), B-6, New Industrial Area, Mandideep, Bhopal. Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon. Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui ___________________________________________________________________ Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, for the appellant. ___________________________________________________________________ ORDER 28/06/2013 Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.As the facts of both the cases are identical, both the cases are being decided by this common order.2. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore by which the assessment ...
R.K. Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10264/2013 R. K. Khare vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 28.06.2013 Heard Shri V.P.Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities have not concluded the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in June 2005 till date. In the circumstances the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to conclude and finalize the departmental proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law. An advance copy of the petition was served upon the learned counsel for the respondent company, but none appears for them. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation before the respondent authorities within fifteen days from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned...
Jandel Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.21728/2012 (Jandel Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Shri S. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the State. Shri R. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Collector, Tikamgarh in Case No.27/Appeal/2011-12 whereby the Collector has directed the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Tikamgarh to re-examine the entire matter on merits and prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that infact the Collector should have quashed the order and should not have remitted the matter back to the C.E.O.and by doing so, has committed an error. The learned counsel for the respondents per contra submits that several irregularities and illegalities were pointed out before the Collector in the preparation of the merit list on acco...
Gajadhar Ahirwar Vs. Kishori Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
S.A.No.833/2009 Second Appeal No.833/2009 28.6.2013 Shri Ashish Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. The learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2007 dismissed the suit No.24-A/97 filed by the appellant, whereas the suit was filed for declaration and injunction. The civil appeal No.37- A/2009 filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned FiRs.Additional District Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2009. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decrees and ordeRs.the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The appellant has submitted a suit before the trial Court that he purchased a land of survey No.310 having area 0.551 Hecters of Mauja Dharampura, Tahsil Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur on 8.3.1999 from the respondent No.1. Sale deed was registered and possession was given. Sold land was a plot bearing area 40 X 6.feet. On 25.1.1997, when the appellant/plaintiff sta...
Jitendra Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.8252/2013 28/06/2013 Shri R.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/University. Petitioners claim to be students of Respondent No.4/ College and have undertaken the Bachelor of Education Examination conducted in the year 2009-10. Inter-alia contending that their results have not been declared by Respondent No.3/ University, this writ petition has been filed. Inviting my attention to an order passed under similar circumstances with regard to the students of the same institute for the same couRs.as contained in Annexure-P6 dated 20.12.2012, learned counsel argues that in more than 10 cases of identical nature, orders have been passed and the petitioners pray for identical benefit. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3/ University submitted that from the documents that have come on record, it is not clear, as to whether all the students are from the same institute i.e.Respondent No.4 and whether the...
K.S. Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10765/2013 (K.S.Raghuwanshi..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.28-06-2013 Heard Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is presently posted at Udaipura and holding the charge of Executive Engineer, Raisen, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2013 by which he has been transferred to Vidisha. It is alleged that the impugned order of transfer amounts to frequent transfer and, therefore, is violative of the transfer policy of the State Government. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation (Annexure P-7) before the competent authority against the said order on 17-6-2013 but no decision thereon has been taken by the authority till date. In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »