Court : Madhya Pradesh
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This contempt petition is filed by Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh, Madhya Pradesh through its President Rakesh Shrivastava alleging non-compliance of order dated 21/11/2013 passed in W.P. No. 20357/2013 in the case of Smt. Kirshna Sharma and others v. State of M.P. and others) by the learned single Judge sitting at Principal Seat, Jabalpur. 2. Having perused the order complained of, three fold questions prima facie arise viz. (i) Whether, contempt petition can be filed at Gwalior alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur; (ii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed by a person who is neither petitioner nor respondent in the order passed by the Principal Seat, Jabalpur; and (iii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed against persons who were not party to the writ petition decided by Principal Seat, Jabalpur by the order complained of. 3. As regards the first question, learned counsel for the petitioner submits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.6340/2010 18.02.2014 None for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. The petitioner sought for the following relief : i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/quo-warranto restraining the respondents from permitting any such issues/ materials to be tabled before the State Assembly which are prohibited under Rule 36 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adhere to the constitutional provisions and also the Assembly Rules in its entirety for conduct of business of the State Legislative Assembly in Madhya Pradesh. iii) To issue a command for producing the entire record pertaining to present case for perusal of Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted by Shri Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General, that the matter relates to raising certain call attention proposal to be tabled in the Vidhan Sabha which cannot be questioned by the petitioner before this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.5260/2010 14.02.2014 Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which nothing much is said except that the petitioner was posted as Joint Director (Finance) under the control of respondent No.3. He was relieved to join the services on his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur. Certain earned leaves were sanctioned to him. A direction was issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Additional Director. The allegations are made that the interim stay was granted by this Court in the matter of eviction of petitioner from Government quarter. Nothing is said in the writ petition whether the petitioner is performing any duty in any department and is entitled to any salary from the State of Madhya Pradesh. On what count, the petitioner has been harassed, is not clear. From t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.9860/2012(S) Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh & otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.11083/2012(S) Devendra Kumar Tiwari -Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12298/2012(S) Arvind Kumar Upadhyay and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12302/2012(S) J.P.Soni and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.And. WRIT PETITION NO.22145/2012(S) Deepak Kumar Shrivastava and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. 2 Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri B.L.Nag, learned counsel for the interveners......[in W.P.No.9860/2012(S)].Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Election Petition No.20/2009 Ramlal Kol, son of Ramsharan Kol, aged about 36 years, resident of village Hirwara, Tahsil Mudwara, Distt. Katni ...Petitioner Versus Moti Kashyap @ Motilal, son of Late Mewalal, resident of 1220, Durga Chowk, Phootatal, Ravindra Ward, P.O. Gurundi Bazar, Jabalpur ...Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner. Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing :10. 1.2013 Date of Judgment :10. 4.2013 JUDGMENT In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent to Badwara Legislative Assembly Constituency No.91 has been called in question on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of Representation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.544/2012 29/1/2013 Shri N.S.Ruprah, Advocate for the petitioner. Arguments concluded. This is a petition, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for review of the order-dated 5/3/2012 passed in M.A.No.464/2012, directing the Registry to return the appeal for its presentation before the Bench at Gwalior in view of the fact that cause of action had arisen at a place between Jora Alapur and Sumaoli Railway Stations located in Distt. Morena, that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench of this Court at Gwalior. Learned counsel for petitioner, the Union of India, has strenuously contended that the order deserves to be reviewed as the order passed by the Tribunal, situated within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court, constituted a part of cause of action and for the purpose, an analogy could have been drawn from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. To buttress the argument, implicit reliance has been placed on a four...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.21057/2012 21.12.2012 Shri A.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) To call for the case record. (ii) To hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from commercial tax on sale of cement in residuary State of Madhya Pradesh manufactured in its cement manufacturing plant at Sonadih. Falling in bifurcated State of Chhattisgarh. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment (Annexure P-3) and the order in revision (Annexure P-4).(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax during the period of eligibility i.e.upto 30-09-2004 under the eligibility certificate granted to it. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition."It is submitted by the petitioner that the controveRs.involved in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Writ Petition No.16730/2012 05/11/2012 Shri Sandesh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General, for the State. The petitioner has sought following relief:- (I) To call for the case record. (ii) To hold that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from commercial tax on sale of cement in residuary State of Madhya Pradesh manufactured in its cement manufacturing plant at Sonadih, following in bifurcated State of Chhattisgarh. (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment (Annexure P/5) and the order in revision (AnnexureP/6).(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant exemption from payment of tax during the period of assessment under the eligibility certificate granted to it. (v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for tax exemption as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted. Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.13863 / 2012 (S.C.Rahatgaonkar, ..Vs..Lokayukta, M.P.& otheRs.21-09-2012 Shri D.N.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1, dated 23-8-2003, the order passed by the respondent No.4, dated 17-3-2009 and the subsequent directions issued by the respondent No.4, dated 26-3-2009 (Annexure P-4) . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh into two States i.e.State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh, respectively, the petitioner was posted in the Forest Department at Amarkantak and at that point of time certain members of the subordinate staff filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No.1, Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh, pursuant to which notices were issued to the petitioner, however, subsequently on formation of the State of Chhattisgarh...
Tag this Judgment!