Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Dr. R.B. Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.10505/2013 Dr. R.B. Dubey Vs. State of M.P. And another PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER (30.09.2013) The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.10.2012 and 17.4.2013 has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is put forth by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 1.8.1980 to 18.9.1986 on the post of Assistant Professor in Law. Thereafter he was regularly appointed on the said post. By an application dated 27.1.2003, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 41(1)(a) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Rules'). Such a notice of the petitioner was accepted counting the period of ad-hoc 2 services of the peti...
Chetana JaIn Vs. Bar Coucil of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
W.P.No.133/2013 W.P.No.9960/2012, W.P.No.10425/2012, W.P.No.12747/2012, W.P.No.13308/2012, W.P.No.16813/2012, W.P.No.16824/2012, W.P.No.16827/2012, W.P.No.16829/2012, W.P.No.19730/2012, W.P.No.134/2013, W.P.No.135/2013, W.P.No.136/2013, W.P.No.138/2013, W.P.No.139/2013, W.P.No.140/2013 W.P.No.141/2013, W.P.No.13075/2013, W.P.No.13133/2013 & W.P.No.14733/2013. 30.9.2013 Sarvashri Shekhar Sharma, Pushpendra Yadav, Dharmendra Soni and Deepak Raghuwanshi, counsel for the petitioner(s).Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for State of M.P.Shri P.K.Kaurav, counsel for Barkatullah University. Shri Udayan Tiwari, counsel for Bar Council of India. As the controveRs.involved in all the matters are identical, it would be appropriate to deal and decide all the matters analogously. The facts are taken from W.P.No.133/2013 (Chetana Jain versus Bar Council of India & otheRs.for the convenience. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly please to issue a writ in the na...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Hasan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1...W.A.No.1311 of 2012 State of M.P.& others S.S.Hasan 30.09.2013 Shri P. Dharmadhikari, G.A.for the appellants. Shri Ishteyaq Hussain, Counsel for the respondent. I.A.14545/12 : Application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 5.1.2012 in W.P.No.26380 of 2003 by which a writ petition against the order of punishment for recovery of amount of Rs.8,85,000/- was allowed. The recovery was quashed on the ground that the respondent had made only proposal for invocation of the bank guarantee and the final decision was of the Secretary concerned namely Dr. Ajeet Raizada who had approved the proposal and directed invocation of the bank guarantee. The writ Court has found that the recovery cannot be made from the respondent. Facts of the case are that a charge-sheet was issued against the respondent and after the enquiry the respo...
Mahatma Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Tekadi, Vs. the State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
W.P.No.15960/2013 (Mahatma Gandhi Higher Secondary School Vs. State of MP) 27.09.2013 None for the petitioner, inspite of the fact that the petition was taken up even in the second round. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who prays for a direction to the respondent to consider their representation for taking over of the School by the Government, by claiming parity with the directions issued by this Court in W.P Nos.2679/2004 and 1865/2012. It is observed that this Court has disposed of a a similar petition in which the same counsel has appeared for the petitioner, i.e.W.P No.6645/2012. The order passed in W.P No.6645/2012 dated 11.10.2012 is reproduced below:- Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.M.Patel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The present petition has been filed ...
Sunil Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 W.P.No.15932/2013 27.09.2013 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents, on advance copy. The petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary and Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Malka, Janpad Panchayat Nowgong, District Chhatarpur, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction against the respondents to command them to grant the benefit of appointment to the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary with retrospective effect and to pay the salary of the said post to him. It is contended by the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat Malka, Block Nowgong, District Chhatarpur on 10.8.2007 for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi for the purposes of notifying the said Panchayat Karmi as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The petitioner submitted the application along with other candidates. In fact, 14 candidates have s...
Ram Prasad Munim Vs. Rama Govind Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11456/2013 27.9.2013 Shri Brindawan Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.7. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.19726/2013, an application for staying the proceedings pending before the trial Court. The applicants have moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in criminal revision No.277/2012, whereby an order under section 398 of the Cr.P.C.was passed for re-enquiry in the complaint. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No.2 had moved a criminal complaint against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 447, 147, 294, 323, 506 (II) of IPC. After recording the evidence under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned JMFC, Satna vide order dated 8.10.2011 dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Cr.P.C.In revision, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge directed to...
Dulare Prasad Raikwar Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.3096/2011 Dulare Prasad Raikwar versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. ORDER (27.9.2013) The petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III in the office of Tahsildar has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to sanction the annual increments of pay to the petitioner for the period of initial appointment w.e.f.1990 to 1993 and to revise and pay the arrears of salary to him. It is contended that in the order of appointment though a condition was mentioned that the petitioner would be required to pass the Hindi Typing examination within a specified period but in terms of the said appointment even if the period of initial appointment was treated as ad hoc period, he would be entitled to pay ...
Ashok Singh Vs. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitatran Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.1951/2011 1 27.09.2013 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents. A reply to the petition has been filed stating certain facts which need to be examined by the departmental authorities in case the disputes are raised. It is contended in the return that a show cause notice was issued and thereafter a recovery has been ordered against the petitioner and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order he can file an appeal before the competent authority as the recovery is a minor penalty prescribed under M.P Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, duly adopted by the respondents. In view of this, it is contended that the order of penalty is appealable and no writ petition would lie before this Court. An application for vacating interim stay is also filed. The fact as stated in the return are not controverted by the petitioner but learned counsel for the petitioner has contended th...
Prahlad Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16440/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioner. It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of M...
Loknath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16374/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri G.S.Gaharwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »