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/s Gemini Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Misc. Appeal Nos.1876/2010 and 1841/2011. 8.1.2014. Shri T.S. Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No.1876/2010. Shri Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for respondent no.8 in M.A. No.1876/2010. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No.1841/2011. Heard. This order shall lead to final disposal of Misc. Appeal No.1876/2010 and Misc. Appeal No.1841/2011, as both these appeals emanate from an Award dated 22.1.2010 passed by the First Additional Member to the Fourth Additional Motor Acci- dent Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Khandwa [hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'].. Whereas, Misc. Appeal 1876/2010 is by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, on the findings regarding involve- ment of the offending vehicle and on quantum. The appeal has been filed on the strength of permission granted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Misc. Appeal 1841/2011 is by the claimants for enhance- ment of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has ...
Santosh Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.2945/2011 08/01/2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The fiRs.relief claimed in this petition is based on the assertion that the Collector, Tikamgarh was at fault and responsible for the situation of delayed water supply from the canal. This assertion has been refuted by the respondents by filing reply affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Tikamgarh. Along with the said reply affidavit, inter departmental correspondence has also been placed on record. The reply affidavit and the said correspondence leave no manner of doubt that the Collector, Tikamgarh was continually following with the Authorities at Lalitpur of the State of U.P., but it was of no avail. The delay in release of water, it is asserted by the officials of the State of Madhya Pradesh was attributable to the laxity and inaction on the part of Authorities of the St...
Krishnpal Singh Vs. Suresh Malviya Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Cr.R.No.106/2013 08.01.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent/State by Shri R.S.Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Shri Surendra Patel, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Heard. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 14/05/2012 passed by JMFC, Sehore in Criminal case No.1053/2008, convicting the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act in short) and sentenced to 6 months R.I and with fine/compensation of Rs.1,37,600/-. Aforesaid finding was affirmed by order dated 10/01/2013 in Criminal Appeal No.151/2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on 21/05/2008 cheque of Rs.80,000/- was issued by the applicant while he was minor and right now applicant is young boy of 20 years only. Without making much comment on merits of the case, learned counsel for applicant submits that he has already paid Rs.1,13,000/- as against aforesaid cheque of Rs.80,000/- during couRs.of trial and appl...
Tiranjan Deshmukh Vs. Dr. Devraj Virdhi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 Conc. No.179/2013 8/1/2014. Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Smt.Sushmita Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4. This contempt application has been filed seeking implementation of an order passed by this Court in a writ petition and subsequently modified in Review Petition No.725/2012. On being noticed, respondents have brought to the notice of this Court the fact that against the order passed by the learned Writ Court a Writ Appeal is pending before the Division Bench and it is also indicated that the grounds raised in the Writ Appeal are also subjudice in certain SLPs pending before the Supreme Court. Under similar circumstances in Writ Appeal No.17211/2012 a Division Bench of this Court has passed the following directions in a case of similarly situated employee :- "At this stage, Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. A.G.submitted that tho...
Rajkumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.108/2014 08/01/2014 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. The prayer made in this petition is for order directing the respondents for giving the pay-scale and other benefits as given to Shiksha Karmi Grade III from the date of their initial appointment. There is no dispute between the parties that the controveRs.involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench at Indore of this Court in the case of Gopal Chowla & ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.2012(2) MPLJ605 wherein the Division Bench held as under : In totality, I am unable to hold that the petitioners are either entitled for equal pay for equal work or for even minimum of the scale because there is no wholesome parity demonstrated by them. I am also unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get minimum wages. ...
M/s Mehra and Sons, a Partnershi Firm, Th:rajendra Mehra Vs. Bank of I ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 W.P.No.21300/2013 8/1/2014. Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Mehndiratta, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel with Shri Girish Shrivastava, for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri Devashish, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is made to an order Annexure P/7 dated 6.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur in a proceeding held under Section 14 of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Act, 2002. Various grounds are raised in the writ petition but a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Others versus State of Maharashtra & Others - (2011).SCC782 learned counsel for the respondents contend that against the order passed under Section 14 a remedy o...
Anil Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.506/2013 08.01.2014 Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4, on advance copy. It is informed by learned counsel for petitioners that the Managing Director of respondent No.5 has been arrested by the police for certain offences and an action is being taken against him. It is contended that action against the respondent No.5 was required to be taken under the provisions of M.P.Nikshepakan Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam for brevity).Since no action was being taken in that respect on earlier occasion, this writ petition was required to be filed. Since now the officer concerned of respondent No.5 is taken in custody for certain offences, if an application is made by the petitioners before the Superintendent of Police Hoshangabad, pointing out commission of offences by the said person under the aforesaid Adhiniyam, the Superintendent of Police will ...
Ram Lal Vs. Premlal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Ary ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.509/2013 08/01/2014 Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sinmgh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 14/12/2012 passed in Misc. Appeal No.16/2012 by 3 rd Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Seoni affirming the order dated 22/2/2012 passed in Civil Suit No.19-A/2012 by 4 th Civil Judge Class-II, Seoni while rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC. Civil Suit was filed for permanent injunction only.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the real brothers and their names are jointly recorded in the revenue record as regards to piece of land of Khasra No.49/2 and 50/2, plot No.6 ad-measuring area 2400 sq.ft. situated at Bhairoganj, Seoni purchased by father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 by re...
Gayatri Rajwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 W.P.No.21123/2013 8/1/2014. Shri D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Petitioner is a retired employee and has retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher. While in service, benefit of Kramonnati was granted to the petitioner, but now after retirement as the benefit of Kramonnati is being withdrawn and recovery ordered, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has decided similar question in Writ Petition No.10919/2011 (Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of MP and others).vide order dated 19.7.2011. In the case of Smt. Santosh Verma (supra).the matter was so dealt with and decided by this Court: 9. The fact remains that the petitioner has retired on 30th June, 2008 and on this date she was drawing the salary of Rs.9,900/- basic. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter rules for short) are squarely applicable in th...
Nandlal [Deceased] Lrs. Smt. Kamalibai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 S.A.No.1173/11. 8.1.2014. Shri Sidhardh Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondents. Although this matter is listed today for admission and consideration of IA No.13795/11, the appellants' application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. But it is apparent fact from the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court that after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court the case has been remitted back with a direction to decide afresh by the trial Court. Under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of CPC, the remand order of the appellate Court is made appealable through Misc. Appeal, in this regard on making certain query from the counsel, on which instead to argue on admission of this appeal seeks permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file Misc. Appeal under aforesaid provision of CPC to challenge the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court with further prayer for appropriate direction to return certified copy o...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »