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.
Ramkumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 W. P. No.7415/13. 3.1.2014. None for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned G.A. for the respondent No.1. Having perused the averments of petition along with the annexed papers, it is apparent that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for following reliefs.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ order/ directions to call the entire records for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/directions to quash the impugned notice dated 1/2010 (Ann. P.10), in the interest of justice.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/directions to direct the respondents to grant the relaxation in payment the electric bills which was sent after disconnection of the electricity connection, in the interest of justice.4. That, this Hon'ble Court ...
The Engineer in Chief Vs. Smt. Sunita Shrivastava Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 W.P No.7716 of 2013 03.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. ORDER On behalf of the petitioneRs.State authorities, this petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench Rewa, in Appeal No.14/MPIR/2010 affirming the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sidhi in case No.12/MPIR/07, whereby allowing the petition of the respondent filed under section 65 of the Madhya Prdesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short `the Act') and the above mentioned state authorities were directed to pay the entire arrears of the salary of the husband of the respondent who was initially appointed on daily wages in the service of the petitioners but subsequently he was classified as permanent employee on the post of Sub Engineer from 26.7.1992 vide order dated 14.9.98 passed by the Labour Court. 2. Initially the case w...
Shrikant Kuchlahe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
WRIT PETITION No.7998/2013 1 03.01.2014 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.16849/2010 (Ashan Lal Lilhare versus State of M.P.and otheRs.and other analogous writ petitions, which have been decided finally vide order dated 23.04.2012. Copy of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. This Court after discussing various laws laid-down by the Apex Court in similar circumstances and taking note of the law laid-down by this Court, has disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions with the following directions : i) In the case of daily rated employees recruited prior to 31/12/1988, the respondents are directed that prior to passing the order of retirement, either on completion of the age of 60 years or on ...
Sonali Mitra Vs. Chandra Prakash Garg Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 W.P No.7428 of 2013 03.01.2014 Shri Rajeev Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 12.2.13 Annex.P/10 passed by the XIIth ADJ.Bhopal in Execution Case No.Ex-A/63/2011 whereby the application of respondents No.2 and 3, the judgment debtors of the impugned decree, filed under order 21 rule 29 of the CPC for quashment of such execution proceedings on the ground that the impugned decree was obtained by the respondent No.1 against them by practising a fraud has been dismissed while the application filed by the petitioner objecting execution of the decree against her on the ground that such decree being obtained by respondent No.1 without impleading the petitioner is not binding upon her and she being one of the legal representative of Shri D .K.Mitra, the principal owner of the disputed property, is also having the right and title in th...
Surendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalay ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Writ Petition No.22152/2013 03.01.2014 Shri J.A.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Navin Dubey learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv for for respondent no.3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent No.1 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the authorities of respondents for the following reliefs:- 1. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus command the respondents to make the payment of outstanding dues of the petitioner as expeditiously along with an interest of 18% per annum from the date of the due till the final realization of the amount. 2. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, alongwith the cost of this writ petition be also awarded. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, after perusing the petition as well as papers placed on record, instead to admit or i...
Rakesh Kumar Rajak Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Judgement Giv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 W.P No.7471 of 2013 03.01.2014 Shri Sandeep Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ against the respondents/ authorities for the following reliefs :- 1. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to protect the basic from the date of conversion.2. That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner as they have done for other similar situated employees and similar relief may be extended to the petitioner also.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper kindly be granted to the petitioner.2. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, on perusing the record, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, the representation of the petitioner Annex.P/3 is still pending in the office...
Kapoorchand (D) Through Lr\'s : Smt. Subhadra Devi JaIn Vs. Smt. Aradh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 S.A.No.1421/2012 3.1.2014 Smt. Shimla Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. Parties are referred to as they stood before the Trial Court. This Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.10.2012 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur partly decreeing the Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.524 A/98 by Third Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur. Kapoor Chand Jain, owner of the part of House No.138-139 situated at Darhai, Sarafa Ward, Jabalpur had filed a suit for declaration that the unauthorised construction raised over the common passage 5' x 85' by the defendants, owner of other part of House No.138-139 be demolished and a permanent injunction that the defendants shall not create any hindrance over common passage (referred as suit premises).Present appellants are the legal heirs of Kapoor Chand Jain, who had expired during pendency of FiRs.Appeal...
Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Jus ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 M.A.3457/2013 M.A.3457/2013 03.01.2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for respondent. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, appeal is finally heard. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby, the claim case : M.A./BPL/2012/0087 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Claim was in lieu of death of Maniram, husband of the appellant, who died on 26.09.2008 while travelling from Dabra to Gwalior in Chattisgarh Express. The claim petition was admittedly barred by 02 yeaRs.07 months and 10 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed on 23.01.2012 and supporting affidavit was filed on 23.04.2012. The Tribunal found fault in respect of non- explanation of time interval in filing affidavit in support of the application for condonation and that the del...
Devi Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
W.P.No.9183/2013 03.01.2014 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. A return has been filed by the respondent No.4 saying that the circular issued by the State Government was prospective in nature and not retrospective, therefore, anybody who was removed from service on account of his engagement as daily wager after the cut off date of 31.12.1988, after the date of circular i.e.21.01.2004, alone was to be considered for reinstatement. It is contended that since the notification issued by the State Government is prospective, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. Such a contention of the respondent No.4 is wholly misconceived in view of the fact that the circular dated 21.01.2004 was issued with retrospective effect. The object of the said circular was for considering the cases of those employees who were removed from...
Heera Nayak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
W.P.No.10273/2013 03.01.2014 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the gradation list as directed by this Court has been filed today vide document No.77/2014. The same is taken on record. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed vide order dated 12.08.1998 as is clear from Annexure P/1, yet while issuing the gradation list of all such persons, before the name of the petitioner, wrong date of appointment has been mentioned. Though a representation has been made but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, he has come before this Court. The basis on which the gradation list has been prepared by the respondent authorities is not clear. The covering memo itself prescribes that in case, there is an error in mentioning any facts in the gradation list, the person concerned can make a representation. If such representation is made by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »