Madhya Pradesh Court October 2015 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.
Ramanand Singh Vs. Northen Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Heard. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 3.2.1960, which has been mentioned in the service record and to allow the petitioner to continue in service. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed on 22.9.1983 on the post of Loader. The petitioner was asked to submit the matriculation certificate on 5.7.1986 so that his case could be considered for promotion to the post of PIT Munshi. The petitioner thereafter was appointed on the post of PIT Munshi on probation on 7.10.1986 and thereafter by an order dated 29.3.1987, his services were regularized on the aforesaid post. The petitioner submitted an application on 27.5.2014 for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the Higher Secondary School certificate. However, the respondents treating the date of birth of the petitioner to be...
Laxmi Devi Singhal and Another Vs. Kailash Singhal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. In view of commonality of facts and issues involved, on the joint request, matters were analogously heard and are decided by this common order. Facts are taken from M.Cr.C.147/2014 2. In these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C the petitioner has called in question the proceedings of complaint case No. 6199/2013. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that court below has erred in passing the order dated 06.07.2013 whereby complaint preferred by respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act ( NI Act) is directed to be registered. The present petitioner was served by issuing notice by registered and ordinary post. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. In para 4 and 5 of the complaint the description of cheques i.e. date, account number and amount etc were shown. It is further averred that said cheques were bounced. Bank gave finding that insuffic...
State of M.P. and Others Vs. Bharat Singh Rai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
Heard on I.A. No. 12644/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of delay. 2. Looking to the grounds set out in the application, I find that good and sufficient ground is made out by the petitioners for condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 12644/2011 is allowed. 4. Also heard on the question of admission. The respondent was working on the post of Chowkidar in the petitioners' department since 01.04.1987 and was removed from service vide oral order dated 01.01.1995. The respondent has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. The respondent has filed an application before the Labour Court challenging his order of termination on the ground that his oral termination from the service is illegal retrenchment and prior to termination of his service, he has neither been given any charge sheet nor matter is pending against him in respect of misconduct. No departmental proceedings initiated agai...
Centauto Automotives (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
A.M. Khanwilkar, CJ. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Tribunal") dated 08.10.2004 (Annexure-P/1), as also by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to "Tribunal") dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure-P/3) and of the Recovery Officer dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner by amending the petition has asked for further appropriate writ or direction in relation to the order dated 28.10.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer in O.A. Execution No.14/2002. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a Certificated Debtor. For recovering the amount from the petitioner, the Recovery Officer issued a public auction notice dated 15.11.2003, which was published on 10.12.2003 in the local newspapers. The auction notice refers to four properties, which were ordered to be sold in auction. Out of that, only two properties are situated at Raipur (Stat...
Sarika Vs. Women and Child Development Department
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2015
1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 06/09/2014 by which the petitioner's services has been put to an end. 2. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker on 22/10/2009. She was served with a show cause notice dated 06/09/2014 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 06/09/2014. 3. The petitioner's contention is that without holding any enquiry as provided under the Scheme relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers dated 10/07/2007, the services of the petitioner were put to an end, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that an enquiry took place on 04/09/2014 and based upon the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued on 06/09/2014. Earlier also a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the services of the petitioner has been put to an ...
Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) Vs. State of M.P. an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2015
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming reliefs as under :- "11.1 That, kindly be issued a writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 State to make an enquiry for fixing liability of the concern officers, who are responsible for neglect in official duties and protect the fundamental rights of victim Ramdayal and take appropriate departmental and criminal action against the concern officers. 11.2 That, kindly be issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to pay monetary compensation to the family of the victim Ramdayal, who was murdered in state custody. 11.3 That, kindly be issued writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 state to submit a report of action taken by state to this Hon'ble Court. 11.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the fact and circumstances to the petitioner may also kindly be granted." 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›