Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Sumitra Bai Vs. Shambhu Prasad @ Annu Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.11636/2013 W.P.No.11636/2013 28.01.2014 Ms.Aparna Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner, vide this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the correctness of order dated 15.05.2013 passed by Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner/claimant for distribution amongst the claimants of the amount of Rs.2,33,988/- being the remainder in the form of interest over Rs.6,81,595/- being amount awarded in Motor Accident claim case No.445/2011. The application has been rejected on the ground that the amount which has been fixed, includes the said amount i.e.Rs.2,33,988/- which has been awarded, distributed amongst the claimants and deposited in the fixed deposit is in accordance with the award. The petitioner challenges the order on the ground that material irregularity is committed as the claims Tribunal has overlooked paragraph 35(4) of the award; wher...
Marotirao Panse Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.22008/2013 W.P.No.22008/2013 28.01.2014 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapaks in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
M/s S.G. Distilleries Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Writ Petition No.1224/2013 (M/s S.G.Distilleries Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.28-01-2014 Heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal with Shri Rahul Diwakar learned counsel on instructions of the petitioner, who is present in the court submits that the petitioner is willing to comply with the demand notice and pay the demand made by the respondents for a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-(eight lacs forty thousand).against which the petitioner has filed the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is also willing to pay interest on the demand made by the respondents but they be granted 90 days' time to deposit the said amount. On the offer made by the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate was asked to seek instructions from the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Jabalpur Shri Vinod Raghuwanshi who is present in the court. The Assistant Excise Commissioner submits that in case the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount along with interest from the date of demand within 90 days, the respondents/...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M. Sons Engineering and Builders Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Arbitration Revision No.4/2011 28/01/2014: Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the applicants. This revision petition has been filed by the State under section 19 of the M.P. Madhastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam challenging the award dated 24th March, 2009 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal in a reference proceeding held before the Tribunal under section 7 of the M.P.Madhastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. There is delay of 671 days in filing the revision petition and therefore I.A.No.5944/2011 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. The dispute in question was raised by the respondent contractor in the matter of a works contract granted to them by the State Government. After the work was completed and in the final settlement when the amount due as per the...
Sudarshan Lohar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.1311/2014 (Sudarshan Lohar versus State of MP and otheRs.27.01.2014 Shri B.P.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the S.D.O./Land Acquisition Officer Deosar/Sarai District Singrouli whereby he has directed the petitioner not to undertake any construction activity on the land in question as the same has been acquired by M.P.J.P.Coal LTD.From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the authority has infact passed an interim order directing the petitioner to stop working on the land in question and has thereafter fixed the case for order on 17.12.2013 at 11 AM on which date the petitioner has been asked to appear before the authority and submit his reply. From a perusal of Annexure P/3 filed by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner has submitted a reply before the authority wherein he has stated that the land has ...
Dulichand Ladiya Vs. Secretary School Education Dept. the State of Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.1081/2014 27/01/2014 Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The writ petition is taken into for consideration on admission, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner claims to have worked as Lascer w.e.f. 01/01/1987 as a contingency paid employee and states that he still continues on the said post, as such, according to him, he has rendered more than 26 years of service. He also points out a communication dated 24 th August, 2013 whereunder the petitioner is recommended to be regularized. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by learned Govt. Advocate that State Government has also issued a new policy on 16/5/2007 consequent upon the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC1by the Hon'ble Supre...
Sunil Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
M.Cr.C.No.380 of 2014 27.01.2014 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent-State. State's counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.535/13, registered against him at Police Station Shahpura, District Dindori for the offence of Sections 457, 380 of IPC. The applicant's counsel after taking me through the impugned order and the averments of the petition argued that the applicant and Anandi Kumar Jharia, the complainant participated in the competition for appointment of Gram Panchyat Secretary. Out of them, the applicant was selected and due to that reason, the complainant has enmity with the present applicant and due to that reason, he has been falsely implicated in the matter by alleging that after breaking the house...
Bhavani Singh Vs. P.S. Udaypura the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
M.Cr.C.No.1156/14 27.01.2014 Shri Umesh Vadiya, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned Govt. Av. for the State/respondent. This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. As the case diary is available hence with the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. On behalf of applicant this petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No.321/13 registered at Police Station Udayapura District Raisen, for the offence under Sections 294, 456, 323, 324, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C.Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments after perusing the case diary in the available circumstances looking to the nature of the case and the evidence collected by the investigating Agency along with the circumstances that at the instance of the present appl...
Ramagovind Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
S.A.No.496/2013 27.1.2014 Shri S.D.Shukla,learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission.1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.75-A/2011 by learned Additional District Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/2008 by learned Civil Judge, Class- I,Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected.2. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the basis of evidence that Raghuvansh Prasad and Shivpal have 1/3rd share each in the disputed property. The findings of both the court below are based on appreciation of facts and proper appreciation of legal position. No substantial question of law is involved in this case, appeal is therefore dismissed. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.1079/2012 27.1.2014 Shri S.A.Wakil,learned counsel for the app...
Chandrakant Dwivedi Vs. Principal Secretary School Education Dept. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.1190/2014 Chandrakant Dwivedi & ORS.versus State of MP & ORS.27/01/2014 Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.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 petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra) has passed the following order : Accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »