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.
Aniruddha Mukhrjee Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 W.P.No.22409/2013. (Aniruddha Mukherjee versus State of M.P.& otheRs.16/01/2014 Shri Aniruddha Mukherjee petitioner in person. By this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:- (1)May call for entire material record pertaining to the instant controveRs.from the respondents for its kind perusal. (2)The writ in the nature of mandamus or any directions in the like nature may please be issued commending the respondents herein to register the petitioner's information's dated 14/12/2013 Annexure P/12 in the specified register as per precedent and law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari versus Government of U.P.and others reported in 2013 (5) MPHT336(SC).investigate the matter and then submit the final report to the appropriate authority, as per the criminal procedure code, within a specified time period, for further order. (3)To direct the respondent No.1 to register a complaint against all the offenders whoever committed mischief, forgery and fraud by man...
Smt. Radha Bai Lodhi Vs. Indrabhan Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 MCC No.1344/2013. (Radha Bai Lodhi versus Indrabhan Singh) 16/01/2014 Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.R.Patel, counsel for the respondent. With the consent of the parties heard finally. The petitioner in the instant case is the wife. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 23/11/2002 at Village Jamunkehda, District Damoh. Two children were borne out of the said wedlock namely Virendra aged 7 years and Mohan aged 4 years as on date. The petitioner though stayed with the respondent husband at Jabalpur for few yeaRs.however since year 2007 due to serious differences between the petitioner and respondent as alleged in the petition and due to harassment and unreasonable demand of dowry, the petitioner was left with no other 2 MCC No.1344/2013. (Radha Bai Lodhi versus Indrabhan Singh) alternative than to leave the husband's home and go to her parental house at Damoh and for last five years she is living at Damoh District. Petitioner ha...
Anand Mining Corporation Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Giv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Anand Mining Corporation versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.9950 / 2013 16.1.2014: Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. The relief claimed for by the petitioner in the writ petition is primarily based on an order passed by the Collector Jabalpur on 27.9.2007 vide Annexure P-9. It is the case of petitioner that in view of the order passed by the Collector, declaring land in question to be revenue land and not forest and that petitioner is permitted to carry mining operation and is seeking the mining license. The question of the order dated 27.9.2007 and its tenability is also considered and decided by this Court in W.P.No.6557/2012 on 4.7.2012. However, now during the pendency of this writ petition it transpires that this order Annexure P-9 dated 27.9.2007 was challenged by the competent authority of the State Government in a proceeding before the Commissioner Jabalpur in an appeal filed unde...
Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
M.Cr.C.No.17355 /2013. 16/01/2014. Mr.Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Ashok Chourasiya, PP for the respondent / State. Arguments heard. This is fiRs.anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.filed on behalf of the applicant Dr. Vinod Bhandari, who is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.14/13 registered at Police Station S.T.F., Bhopal (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of IPC and also under section 3 (d) (i).2/4 of the M.P.Manyataprapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 and also under sections 65, 66 of the Information & Technology Act. According to case diary, several students / candidates have been admitted in M.B.B.S.or P.G.couRs.by paying illegal money to several persons including the persons who are In-charge of the Professional Examination Board. It is alleged that the applicant was also involved in the conspiracy of admission to the PG couRs.by taking illegal amount from the candi...
Ravaindra Bhosle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 W.P.No.13938/2012 16/1/2014: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta , learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming regular pay scale in view of the Circulars issued by the State Government extending the benefit of regular pay scale to employees who are working in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment against sanctioned vacant posts. Even though learned counsel for the respondent tried to contend that petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit but from the facts that have come on record and documents filed therewith, it is seen that the Indore Bench of this Court vide Order passed on 29.10.2003 in W.P.No.4389/03 following an earlier order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.128/99 (Smt. Savitri Bai versus State of M.P.) directed the State Government to consider the case of employees in the light of directions issued in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) and decide the m...
Shivnendra Ukey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 Writ Petition No.19435/2013 Writ Petition No.19435/2013 16.01.2014 Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Heard. Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite year of teaching experience is cause for present writ petition. That the cadre of Area Education Officer came to be created by causing amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982. The posts are to be filled up through a limited Departmental Examination from amongst Teachers (Upper Division TeacheRs.Head Masters of Middle School/Adhyapak of Local Bodies. The minimum educational qualifications and other requisitions as per amendments in Rule 1982 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.08.2013 are Graduate Degree from recognized University and B.Ed. which should be recognized...
ind Synergy Limited Vs. the Authorised Officer Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 W.P.No.10568/2013 16/1/2014. Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Mehndiratta, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that the petitioners had filed total 13 cases before the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal and on certain grounds of defaults and defects in the application submitted the secutarization application under Section 17 of the Secutarization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were not registered by the Registrar. The Registrar passed an order on 16.11.2011 refusing to register the application. The matter travelled in appeal to the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 20.12.2012 Annexure P/3 the Debts Recovery Tribunal has rejected the appeal mainly on the ground that the order was passed by the Registrar on 16.11.2011 and the appeal is lodged in accordance to the DRT Procedure Rules before the Presid...
Chhagan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
W.P.No.4016/2010 16/1/2014 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is ...
Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
W.P.No.1745/2010 16.01.2014 Shri Kishore Shrivastav, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1/State. Shri A.P.Shroti, learned ocunsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Heard. As arguable questions are raised, admit. As regards interim relief, the arrangements stated in the order dated 26.3.2010 to continue till the disposal of the writ petition. We place on record the submission made by the counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the petitioner is irregular in paying the security deposit as and when it becomes payable. In that case it is open to the said respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law against the petitioner, if so advised. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 26.3.2010 does not consider the grievance of the petitio...
D.P. Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
W.P.No.11044/2009 16/1/2014 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »