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.
Ban Sagar Pariyojna Shramik Swastha Karmachari Sangh Deolond Vs. the S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.9240/2013 (PIL) Ban Sagar Pariyojna Shramik versus State of M.P.& others 17/06/2013 Shri Dinesh Prasad Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i).To issue directions to the respondents to post the private respondent No.8 to 10 in their original posting place i.e.Deolond wet land under Bansagar Pariojana for anti-malaria unit on the post of Subordinate worker. (ii).To issue direction to the respondents specially respondent no.3 not to pay the salary to the private respondent no.8 to 10 until they do not join at their original posting place i.e.Deolond Wet land anti- malaria unit under Bansagar Project appreciating interest of residents of Deolond wet land saving them from Malaria. (iii).To quash the impugned order impugned dated 18.4.13 Annexure P/13 which is totally illegal, against the law and proceeding and command the respondents to take ne...
Goverdhan Prasad Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 W.P.No.9023/13. Writ Petition No.9023/2013. 17.6.2013 . Ms.Nirmala Raikwar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for following relief : (i) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the respondent No.2 and 4 to grant Nazul Land Patta of Block No.8 Plot No.3/1 area 25x50=1250 sq. ft. and mutation of the land for petitioner favour of the petition the respondent No.2 and 4 to granted Nazul land allotted to the patta and mutation of this land to the petitioner. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the respondent No.2 and 4 to give all consequential benefits payments etc.with retrospective effect. (iii) The relevant record may kindly be called for reference and perusal. (iv) Any other appropriate writ or direction may also kindly be issued if warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's counse...
Tarun Mandal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.9176/2013 (PIL) Tarun Mandal versus State of M.P.& others 17/06/2013 Shri Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i).That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of auctions dated 16.1.13 & 21.3.13 (Ann.P-2) & order of extension of existing leases dated 26.4.13(Ann.P-6) passed by the respondent No.3. (ii).That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to make appropriate changes in the rules and guidelines and direct the officers concerned to resort against the illegal miners under the provisions of M.P.Miner Minerals Rules, 1996 and not otherwise under Section 247(7) of the M.P.L.R.Code, 1959. (iii).Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased as deemed, fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. ...
Prakash Mukhraiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.5687/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6. None for respondent no.3, although served. Notice issued to respondent No.4 is received back unserved. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2013, passed by the Additional Judge, to the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.16-A/2011 whereby allowing the applications of the respondents filed under Section 10 of CPC in view of pendency of Civil Suit No.1-A/12 at the instance of respondents in the court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Burhanpur further trial of the petitioner's suit was stayed. After hearing both the parties, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the imputed order, it appears that the petitioner herein is claiming the property, including the described property by the respond...
Umakant Verma Vs. Smt. Rashmi Arun
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
-1- C.P.No.507/2013 17.6.2013 Shri R.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Vide this contempt petition non-compliance of order dated 21.2.2011 passed in W.P.No.20395/2003 has been complained of and a prayer has been made to initiate action against the respondents. W.P.No.20395/2003 was disposed of on 21.2.2011 in following terMs.1. That the petitioner shall submit a representation before the competent authority along with order dated 21.10.2003 passed in W.P.No.18848/2003 and also copy of the order passed today. If such a representation is filed then the competent authority shall look into the matter and shall give the benefit if the case is identical in nature within a period of three months. When called upon to demonstrate as to whether in pursuance to order passed in the said writ petition whether any representation was preferred by the petitioner to the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out -2- that...
Malhotra Construction Co. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P. No.9366/2013 Malhotra Construction Co. vs. State of M.P. & others 17/06/2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-1. quashing the impugned orders dated 28/01/2013 (Annexure P/7) and order dated 06/05/2013 (Annexure P/8) directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded sum of Rs.63.11 lakhs plus interest plus expenses, issued by Respondents, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious.2. quashing the order of recovery for other contracts.3. An interim relief be ordered to stay the recovery proceedings, till the final outcome of this petition, so as to avoid the undue harassment to the petitioner.4. Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.5. Costs be awarded to the petitioner.. The case of the petitioner is that against the termination of the contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No....
Lakhan Singh Sarote Vs. Man Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 W.P. No. 7298 Of 2011 17.6.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. With consent, matter is heard finally. Order dated 6.4.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 is being assailed; whereby, the election petition preferred by the petitioner against the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch Gram Panchyat Junwani, Tahsil and District Dindori has been dismissed. Election for Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Junwani was held on 18.1.2010; wherein, respondent No. 1 secured 301 votes, against the petitioner securing 292 votes. The polling was held at two polling booths, i.e., Polling Booth No. 74 (Junwani) and Polling Booth No. 75 (Khurpar). At polling booth No. 74, 66 votes were found invalid; whereas, at polling booth No. 75, 39 vote...
Ramji Sharma Vs. Shri M.P. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Ramji Sharma versus Shri M.P.Singh Conc. (Cr.) No.11 17. 6.2013: Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Seeking initiation of contempt action against non- applicant for filing a wrong affidavit in the proceedings held in Conc. No.1475/2012 and contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 10.01.2012 in W.P.(s) No.973/2003 have not been complied with, this application has been filed. Applicant is working as Helper in Municipal Corporation at Jabalpur. An industrial dispute was arose with regard to grant of certain benefits and an award was passed by the Labour Court Jabalpur in various cases, including the case of present applicant Shri Ramji Sharma, directing for grant of certain benefits including the payment of difference of wages. The award passed by the Labour Court not only in the case of present applicant but also in various other cases was challenged by the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur in various writ petitions, morethan five in number, and all ...
Guru Prasad Mishra Vs. Smt. Snehlata Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
-1- C.P.No.1360/2012 17.6.2013 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. This contempt petition is filed alleging not compliance of order dated 13.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.17944/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of in following terMs.Records indicate that the question with regard to payment of salary to teachers working in aided institutes at par with Government Teachers to whom 5 th Pay Commission recommendation have been granted decided in various cases, particularly in the case of V.V.Ashthana and others v.State of M.P.and others W.P.No.2029/2000 decided on 29/1/2003 SLP filed by the State Government have also been rejected. Keeping in view the aforesaid respondents are directed to take action for deciding case of the petitioner in accordance to law and directions issued in the case of V.V.Ashthana (supra) and pay to the petitioner benefit in accordance to law within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However it appears from the r...
Naushad Ahmad Lari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.10243/2013 (Naushad Ahmad Lari ...Vs...State of M.P.and otheRs.17-06-2013 Shri Faiaz Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri C.L.Sethi,learned counsel for the caveator. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that he be permitted to approach the competent authority by filing a representation against the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner dated 4-6-2013 by which he has been transferred from Nagar Parishad, Nepanagar to Nagar Parishad, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in the capacity of C.M.O.In view of the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a representation against the impugned order dated 4-6-2013. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days of obtaining...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »