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.
M.P.Road Transport Corporation Vs. Galeshwar Singh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1 W.P.No.6965/2010 W.P.No.6965/2010 27.01.2014 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition at the instance of Employer-M.P.Road Transport Corporation is directed against order dated 23.01.2009 passed by the State Industrial Court, Bench at Rewa; whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Rewa in case No.185/MPIR/2004 has been dismissed. Respondent No.1-workman, employed as Conductor under the control of Depot Manager, Rewa has raised his grievance before the Labour Court vide application under Section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 that though it was beyond the powers of the Depot Manager to suspend him pending departmental inquiry into an alleged major misconduct for a period exceeding four days under 12(4)(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing OrdeRs.Rules, 1963 yet he was kept under suspension beyond such period by order dated 27.05.20...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Hardeo Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Sunil Kumar versus Hardeo Yadav & Anr Writ Petition No.1333 / 2014 27.1.2014 Shri Udai Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Satna in M.C.A.No.18/2012 in the matter of taking on record certain documents filed by way of additional evidence in a proceeding held under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondents plaintiffs had filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. Along with suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed. This application was rejected by the trial court vide order Annexure P-3 dated 28.8.2012 and against this revision order a misc. appeal has been filed which is pending in the court of 4 th Additional District Judge Satna. In the pending appeal it seems that an application of taking certain documents on record had been filed by the plaintiffs respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and initial th...
Suneel Shrivastava Vs. Smt. Meena Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Suneel Shrivastava versus Smt. Meena Bai & ORS.Writ Petition No.18607 / 2012 27.1.2014 Shri M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.S.Choudhary, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P-2 dated 17.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Gadarwara in Civil Suit No.20-A/2010 and the order Annexure P-1 dated 28.9.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Gadarwara in Misc. Appeal No.5/2012 petitioner plaintiff has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. The suit has been filed on the basis of power of attorney granted and at the stage of evidence as the attorney holder wanted to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff an application was filed under Order 3 Rule 1&2 CPC and such application was rejected by the trial court merely on the ground that the attorney holder cannot entered into the witness box and give evidence in suppor...
isna Dhote Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Isna Dhote & ORS.versus The State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1359 / 2014 27.1.2014 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. PetitioneRs.four in number, are aged beyond 75 yeaRs.they are in the age group 75 to 79 and have retired from service in the year 1993-1994. They have filed this writ petition after about 20 years of their retirement and they claim that while in service their claim for grant of Kramonnati after completing 12 years and 24 years of service in accordance to policies and circulars of the State Government has not been considered. Seeking grant of kramonnatti now in accordance to the policies of the government petitioners have approached this court. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General points out that the policy for grant of kramonnatti was formulated by the State Government on 3.3.1986 and thereafter on 3.3.1999 and as the petitioners were in service when the policy dated 3.3.1986...
Pradeep Kumar Naik Vs. Dr. Manik Lal Naik Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1 W.P.No.14003/2013 W.P.No.14003/2013 27.01.2014 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Ms.Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.7-State of Madhya Pradesh. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 20.07.2013 passed by FiRs.Additional District Judge, Panna, in Civil Suit No.1-A/2013 (Old No.37-A/2011).whereby, leave sought by the petitioner/plaintiff for production of additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been declined. Suit at the instance of petitioner/plaintiff is for declaration of title on the basis of being in adveRs.possession and for permanent injunction in respect of house situated in village Badwara. The suit was filed on 11.04.2011 and after long adjournments, was fixed for recording of plaintiff's evidence on 13.07.2012. Plaintiff faulted in adducing evid...
Bhola Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1 W.P. No. 1321 Of 2014 27.1.2014 Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for State of M.P. on advance notice. Petitioners who are Sainik in Home Guards seek quashment of Memorandum dated 11/11721/Stha (2)/2013 dated 16.12.2013 issued by Director General, Home Guard, Madhya Pradesh; whereby the Divisional Commandant, Home Guards are called upon to take steps to fill in backlog posts and 5 % of the vacant posts of Havaldar Instructor, Hawaldar Storeman, Constable, Constable (Driver) and Dispatch Rider in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Class III (Executive) Recruitment Rules, 2000 and Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Class III (Technical) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 from Home Guard Sainik who has completed 6 years on 31.1.2014 and in the age group of 21 to 45 years as on 1.1....
Deepak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1 M. Cr.C.No.14385/2013. 27.1.2014. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G.A.for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard. This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 22.5.2013 in connection with Crime No.101/2013, registered at Police Station Chipavad District Harda for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As alleged the wife of the applicant namely Maya has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire within seven years from the date of marriage on account of cruelty committed by the applicant and his parents on account of demand of dowry. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the case diary, I have found that after sustaining burn injuries she was taken to hosp...
Ramsajeevan Verma Vs. Secretary Energy Department the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.783/2014 Ramsajeevan Verma versus State of MP & ORS.24/01/2014 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel appears and takes notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 & 6. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming benefit as has been granted in the case of Uma Shankar Dwivedi versus MP Electricity Board & ORS.(W.P.No.5458/2011).which was decided by a bench of this Court on 4.3.2013. Claiming similar benefit, another writ petition W.P.No.174/2014 (Santosh Kumar Verma versus State of MP & Ors.) was filed and a coordinate bench of this Court on 8.1.2014 disposed of the writ petition in the following manner : The petitioner in the present petition claims applicability of the similar service conditions to the petitioner as applicable to the employees of MPSEB. It is submitted that similar claim has been allowed by this Court in W.P.No.5458/2011 decided on 4.3.2013 which has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by order...
Prem Chandra Chaurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.7115/2013 24.1.2014 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the intervenor. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writs for quashing the impugned orders dated 13.2.2013 and 5.4.2013 issued by the respondents 2 and 3 directing that headquarter of Block Gaurihar not to shift from Barigarh to Gaurihar. ii. To call the entire records pending before the learned Court below. iii. To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of petitioner with the cost of the petition The case of the petitioner is that headquarter of Block Development office, Gaurihar which is presently situated at Barigarh should continue at Barigarh and should not be shifted to Gaurihar. ...
Smt. Krishna Pusam Vs. Secretary Tribal Welfare Department the State o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Smt. Krishna Pusam & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1203 / 2014 24.1.2014: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussi...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »