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.
Smt. Geeta Devi Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
W.P.No.20885/2013 06/01/2014 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioneRs.in the instant writ petition, relates to consideration of claim of the petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground who is son of deceased Shyamlal Chaturvedi who was posted as Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Barhi and expired in harness on 25/6/2012 leaving behind the petitioneRs.The petitioners contended that after the application so filed, several reminders were submitted but the same did not yield any result, though Divisional Dy. Director, Urban Administration and Development, Jabalpur and District Project Officer, District Urban Administration and Authority, Katni have recommended the candidature of the petitioner No.2 for consideration of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground vide their recommendation letters dated 12/03/2013 and 13/6/2013 respectively. Learned counsel for ...
Kartar Singh Vs. Mulayam Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justic ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
S.A..NO.876/2012 06/01//2014 Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant. He is heard on the question of admission. This is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court, rejecting the suit for declaration, partition and injunction filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims to be son of Imrat Singh and it is said that the property in question which is situated in village Khurai, District Sagar is the joint property belonging to the family of the appellant and the respondents. It is seen that after death of predecessor of the parties concerned, the plaintiff and the respondents are in possession of the suit property and contending that by partition deed Ex.P-1 is said to have been executed more than 15 years back, partition of the property has been effected, inspite of the same the defendants are creating hindrance in the peaceful possession of...
Kishore Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Kishor Singh Rajput & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.22245 / 2013 6.1.2014: Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. In view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has granted exemption from payment of additional court fee vide order dated 1.4.2013 passed in W.P.No.1886/2013 (Pushpendra Dhakad and Others versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.I.A.No.17837/2013 stands allowed. The petitioners are exempted from payment of additional court fees. Perused the record. It is stated in the petition that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is further stated that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of t...
Devi Singh Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Writ Petition No.5537/2013 06.01.2014 Shri J.K.Pillai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. The substantive relief claimed in this petition is to direct the State Authorities to execute the mining lease agreement with the respondent no.4 in respect of KhaSr.No.39 for a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. We are appalled to find that Public Interest Litigation has been filed against the State Authorities to compel them to act contrary to the mandate of law. In that, according to the State Authorities the land which was put to auction was later on found to be covered by forest area, after the Forest Department raised that objection. As a result, no agreement was executed with the respondent no.4 nor the respondent no.4 insisted for permitting him to undertake mining activity in the area notified in the auction notice. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner can...
Sunil Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Sunil Patel & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.22149 / 2013 6.1.2014: Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Devashish Sakalkar, 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...
Jaishri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Writ Petition No.18165/2013 02.01.2014 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Anurag Budholiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- a registered construction company has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, (the same appears to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same could be entertained under such Article) being aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2013, passed by the respondent No.2- appellate authority numbered as 1st/Steno/Cess/2013/1735, whereby dismissing its appeal on the technical question of limitation and on some other technical ground the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 assessing authority numbered as ALC/BD/12/165-68, has been affirmed, whereby such authority has assessed the sum as stated in the petition against the petitioner under the provision of Workers Welfare Cess Act 1996, in sh...
Heera Singh Thakur Vs. Vice Chancellor Through Registrar, Jawaharlal N ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
W.P.No.47/2014 Heera Singh Thakur versus The Vice Chancellor & Anr. 06/01/2014 Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has directed service of copy of this petition on the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents to seek instructions and to make his submission with respect to the claim made in the writ petition. The petitioner, a retired employee of respondents, is claiming the benefit of arrears of salary and consequential benefits of revision of pension and payment of arrears of pension. It is not in dispute that the respondents have accepted the recommendations made by 6th Pay Commission and the M.P.Revised Pay Rules, 2009 and have revised the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2006. However, this was done after the retirement of the petitioner. As a consequence of grant of such benefit, the arrears of pay were to be calculated an...
Shafeeq Khan Vs. Sanjay Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
1 Conc. No.1715/2013 6/1/2014. Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents. Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the 5th pay commission recommendation in the matter of payment of salary to the Teachers working in aided institute is not being granted. In such matters various orders have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the claim have been decided in the following manner :- "The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benef...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
1 MA No.3823 of 2013 06.01.2014 Smt Amrit Ruprah, counsel for the appellant. Subject to order, respondents are yet to be noticed with IA No.14656/13 an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the available circumstances, without issuing any notice to the other side on the aforesaid IA, the same is taken-up for consideration. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view her arguments, after perusing the IA, for the reasons stated in it, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, hence by allowing the IA, such delay is hereby condoned. At the request of appellant's counsel, the appeal is taken-up for hearing on admission. Heard on the question of admission. ORDER The appellant/ insurer has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 3.9.13 passed by VIII AMACT, Bhopal in MVC No.1647/11 whereby the claim of the respondent No.1 with respect of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicula...
Mrs. Indrasena Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
MRS.Indrasena Dubey & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.21119 / 2013 6.1.2014: Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Devashish Sakalkar, 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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »