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.
Union of India Vs. Harsh Agrawal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.C.C.No.4/2014. 24.1.2014. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for applicants. Shri Rajesh Meindiratta, learned counsel for respondents. Vide this application; the judgment debtor seeks extension of time for vacating the suit premises for a period of six months. Second Appeal No.1275/2009 directed against judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 passed by 17th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.21-A/2008, arising out of judgment and decree dated 25.9.2007 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.46-A/2004, was disposed of on 29.8.2013 in the following terms - "(i) That the appellants shall give an undertaking before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today that they shall not create any third party interest of peaceful manner on or before 30th December, 2013. On furnishing such an undertaking, the appellants shall be permitted to occupy the suit accommodation upto 30th December, 2013. (ii) That the appellants shall deposit en...
Smt. Kiran Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.17239/2013 Smt. Kiran Mishra versus State of MP & ORS.24/01/2014 Ku. Kiran Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Chemist in the Department of Geology and Mining, Government of MP and has filed this writ petition seeking reimbursement of medical bill arising out of the treatment of her husband. Petitioner is claiming reimbursement based on the circular issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure-P6 dated 18.7.2008. However, from the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the circular Annexure-P6 is issued under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules, 1958 and according to the return, it is said that this circular and rules are only applicable to the government servants and their dependents. As far as petitioner's husband is concerned, it is said in the return that he is a retired government servant, he was Class-II...
Mithlesh Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT APPEAL NO.20 OF2013Division Bench :- Hon. Justice Shri Krishn Kumar Lahoti & Hon. Justice Shri U.C. Maheshwari Mithlesh Rai Versus. The State of M.P. and others For appellant : Shri Adarshmuni Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S.K. Mishra, Adv. For respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate. WRIT APPEAL NO.803 OF2012Santan Rai @ Pappu Rai Versus. The State of M.P. and others For appellant : Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. For respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate. ORDER ( 24 .01.2014) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid both the Intra Court Writ appeals. 2 2. The appellants have filed their respective W.A. No.20 of 2013 and W.A. No.803 of 2012 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P. No.7426 of 2012 whereby their joint petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of In...
Ghasiram Sanodia Vs. Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance Departmen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Writ Petition No.584/2014. 24.1.2014. Shri A.K.Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1-State of M.P.on advance notice. Petitioner, retired Sub-Engineer, has filed this petition, seeking direction to the respondents to forthwith release the amount of arrears as also revised pension as per recommendation of 6 th pay commission for the period from 1.1.2006 till 31.8.2008. During the couRs.of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the order-dated 28.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.18770/2013 (Komal Chand Jain and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.has to submit that in cases of similarly situated employees, a direction has been given to the respondents to consider the claim on the basis of scheme brought in vogue on 10.9.2008. It is urged that similar direction may be issued in the present case. Writ Petition No.18770/2013 was disposed of in the following terms - "The only claim made by the petitioners...
Puran Chand JaIn Vs. Principal Secretary State of Madhya Pradesh Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1 W.P.No.792/2014 24/01/2014 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioners admittedly in possession of government land ad-measuring 18x48 sq.mtrs., in ward No.1 over which unauthorized construction of house is being carried out. Notice has been issued to the petitioners vide Annexure P/1 by the respondent No.5 calling upon him to remove encroachment, failing which the same shall be removed at his costs. Petitioners have submitted reply to the aforesaid notice as Annexure P/3. Petitioners seek direction that the reply so submitted be ordered to be considered by the respondent No.5. As matter of fact no direction as such is required to be issued on that behalf as there is no reason not to trust respondent No.5 that he shall not decide the same in accordance with law. Be that as it may, it is expected that respondent No.5 shall consider the pending representation/ reply of the petitioners Annexure P/3 dated 10/06/2013 in accordance with law by affording due opportu...
Smt. Kamla Thakur Vs. Principal Secretary Revenue Deptt. the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.801/2014 Smt. Kamla Thakur versus State of MP & ORS.24/01/2014 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a retired employee, she was retired on 31.10.2013 from the government service. When her pension claim was placed before Respondent No.4-the Divisional Joint Director Treasury and Account and Pension, he raised certain objections in the matter of fixation of pension and requested Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to decide the matter. Accordingly, records indicate that the Collector-Respondent No.3 took note of the objections and forwarded the matter to the office of Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P7 on 9.7.2012. The office of Respondent No.2 examined the same and vide communication Annexure-P8 dated 7.11.2012 referred the matter back to the Collector and indicated to him that the Collector is competent to decide the matter and concurrence and approval of the revenue department is not necessary. Accordingly, Collector passed an order Annexure-P9 dated 6.12.2013 a...
Smt. Madhumati Thakur Vs. Principal Secretary School Education Dept. t ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.744/2014 24/01/2014 None for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners served as Assistant Teacher have reached the age of superannuation. The petitioners were accorded the benefit of fiRs.Kramonnati w.e.f.01/01/1986 pursuant to the circular dated 21/3/1983, however, the petitioners have not been accorded the benefit of second Kramonnati, though they are entitled to, pursuant to the aforesaid circular after completion of 20 years of service. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court on 27/11/2013 in W.P.No.20256/2013 annexed at page 16 of the writ petition wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order in relation to claim for second Kramonnati in the light of the Judgment rendered in Smt. Prena W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and other in W.P.No.6773/2006 decided on 26/4/2007. For ready reference relevant para-17 of the judgment is quoted below : 17. Consequently these ...
M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.16796/2010 24.01.2014 Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri N.K.Salunke, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13.09.2010, 30.09.2010 and 30.10.2010. (ii) to issue a writ declaratory in nature that the respondents cannot levy charges contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed. (iii) any other relief deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed. (iv) costs be awarded to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that without following due procedure of law enhanced premium has been imposed against the petitioner. The appeal Annexure P-9 has been preferred to the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (MPSIDC).Bhopal under clause 33 but till date the aforesaid appeal has not been decided. It is submitted tha...
Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. M/s S.K. Minerals Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Commissioner of Income versus M/S.S.K.Minerals 1 I.T.A.No.52 / 2009 24.1.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act is filed by the department challenging an order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jabalpur. Respondent firm filed a return of income for the assessment year 2003-2004 declaring the total income of `5,26,180/- as on 31.10.2003. The assessment was conducted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and a total taxable income of `6,42,947/- was worked out, the order of Assessing Officer is Annexure A-1. However, invoking the jurisdiction available to him under Section 163, the Commissioner of Income Tax found that the assessment of income done is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence set aside the assessment order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. An appeal is filed by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal and the said appe...
Smt. Laxmi JoThe Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1 W.P.No.1064/2014 W.P.No.1064/2014 24.01.2014 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State on advance notice. 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 Mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »