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.
A.K.Siddiqui Vs. Shri M.M. Upadhyay Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Contempt Case No :: 1390 / 2010 A.K.Siddiqui versus Shri M.M.Upadhyaya and others 10.01.2014. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for the applicant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Complaining dis-obedience of order-dated 22.7.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2846/2003, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. In W.P.No.2846/2003, a learned Single Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to settle the pensionary claims of the applicant within a period of two months indicated therein. The dispute pertains to a so-called recovery of `2,26,054/- and the respondents have filed a reply in the contempt application on 8.12.2010 and they say that after withholding the sum of `2,26,054/-, all the pensionary claims of the applicant have been settled. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after order is passed in the writ petition, withholding of the amount is unsustainable. The respondents have stated that they had filed Writ Appea...
Subodh Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary M.P.State Electricity Board Judgemen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.No.3818/2009 10.01.2014 None for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the respondents. Petitioner has challenged the punishment order on the sole ground that the Superintending Engineer was not competent to issue such order. It is submitted by Shri Nair that the controveRs.raised in this case has already been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in R.P.No.172/2009 on 24.10.2013 in the case of M.P.Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others versus S.K.Dubey, by which the Full Bench held thus:- "8. It is trite law that if a provision is made to deal with specific situation, the same would prevail over the general provision. [See: Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and OtheRs.(2010) 4 SCC498. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the order dated 2.9.2003 which deals with the revised delegation of power. Under the aforesaid delegation of power, the Executive Director/Chief Engineer has been granted powers to punish and impose minor penalty for class I officers of the ran...
Mangla Vs. Budhdha Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
SECOND APPEAL NO.1289/10 10-01-14 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. This is plaintiffs appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court in dismissing the suit for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiffs. Appellant and his brother respondent no.5 Subana filed suit in question for declaring the title, possession so also permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. It was the case of the appellants that their father Munjiya Dheemar and respondents father one Ganua Dheemar were real brotheRs.It was said that one patta was granted to the plaintiffs father late Munjiya about 50-60 years back. Munjiya cultivated the land and after his death for about more than 25 yeaRs.the plaintiffs have been cultivating their land. It is said that as respondents have got their names entered as co-shares of the land in the revenue record on 16-09-1984 and as the ...
Saurabh Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.NO.22081/2013 10-01-2014 Shri G.S.Ahulwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P-15 dated 04-11-2013, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner is holding the post of Circle Observer in Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Satna. It seems that a trap was laid by Lokayukt organization and based on certain inquiry conducted, the petitioner is being proceeded with and on the ground that in the light of the proceedings initiated by Lokayukt organization, it is not appropriate to give charge of Circle Observer to the petitioner, therefore certain duties of the petitioner have been withdrawn, petitioner is before this court. Pointing out that the action is taken against the petitioner on the basis of a false complaint made, the complaint of complainant Rajesh Pandey is not correct because on the report made by the petitioner against Rajesh Pandey, he was punished by stoppage of two increm...
M/s Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.NO.22011/2013 10-01-2014 Shri A.P.Shrivastava,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice. Certain orders have been passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax(TDS) Bhopal and against the said order passed, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur and the appeal is pending . The petitioner has also filed an application for stay but the orders on the said application cannot be passed as the Tribunal at Jabalpur is not functioning. In view of the above seeking stay with regard to recovery, this writ petition has been filed. Shri A.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material available on record particularly document Annexure P-11 and points out that when the matter was pending in appeal, before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal) an interim order was granted whereby initially installment of Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Thousand)...
Sunita Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Writ Petition No.18233 / 2013 (Sunita Thakre .Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.10-01-2014 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses necessary qualification for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and had also passed the qualifying examination but she is being denied the appointment on the ground that she had obtained 49% marks in the qualifying higher secondary and other examinations. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any representation before the respondent/authorities for mitigation of her grievance. The question as to whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or not is yet to be considered by the respondent/authorities keeping in mind the concerned rules and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. In the circums...
Suryabali Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.No.6378/2013 ( Suryabali Pandey .Vs.State of M.P.& others ) 10-01-2014 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent/University. Heard on the question of admission. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for continuance in service up to the age of 62 years in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of W.P.Nos.18500/2006 and 21478/2013. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University submits that in case the petitioner files a representation before the concerned authority, they shall examine the case of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the aforesaid statements made by them, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a dire...
Smt. Shakuntala Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
W.P.No.14219/2012(S) (Smt. Shakuntala Singh versus State of MP and others ) 09.01.2014 Heard Shri S.P Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2012 by which the petitioner who was working on contract basis as Superintendent of Hostel, has been terminated, submits that during the pendency of this petition the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent criminal court and her case has also been forwarded for reconsideration and reinstatement to the Collector, Damoh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Damoh to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders thereon in an expeditious manner. The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State o...
Shankarrao Bankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Writ Petition No :: 22015 / 2013 (S) Shankarrao Bankar and others versus State of MP and otheRs.09.01.2014. Shri Jitendra Arya for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. It is the case of the petitioners that according to the provisions of M.P.Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scale of Shiksha Karmi but as their claim for grant of regular pay scale is not being considered, this writ petition is filed. It is stated that in identical situation, the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010(S) has decided the matter and in the aforesaid case namely Mohanlal & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.the petition was disposed of vide order dated 22/01/2010 and certain directions were issued. The order passed in the case of Mohanlal (supra) reads as under:- Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to dispo...
Satish Chandra Bhargava Vs. Dr. Punkhraj Maru Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
CONC No.278/12, Conc.No.1517/12, Conc.No.1410/12, Conc.No.1530/11 and Conc.No.1623/12 09/01/2014 Shri Vijay Tripathi, Shri R.B.Tiwari and Ashri Ashisha Shorti, , ntlearned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.N.Singh, Senior Counsel with Shri Kumaresh Pathak for the respondents. These contempt applications have been listed today for passing appropriates order in the light of the findings recorded by us with regard to contempt already committed by the respondents, vide order dated 02-07-2013 in the matter of implementing the directions issued by this court in the writ petitions and the writ appeals. All these cases pertain to grant of pay scale to the persons like the present applicants, who are Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and as directions issued by the writ court, writ appellate courts and the Supreme Court in special leave petition filed by the State Government were not complied with and as the appropriate pay scale was not granted, we held respondents guilty for contempt an...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »