Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing State Of M.P. And Ors. vs M.S. Wakankar And Anr. on 2 November, 2006

Manoj Kumar vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 2 November, 2007

The view taken by the Division Bench in Rama and Company (supra), was referred to a Larger Bench as there was a conflict of opinion amongst the decisions in the cases of Rama and Company (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.S. Wakankar 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 298 (DB) : 2007(1) M PLJ 99 and Shrimad Shiva Dubey (Jhira) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey W.A. No. 310/2006, decided on 14-8-2006.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 50 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. Jaidev Siddha And Ors. vs Jaiprakash Siddha And Ors. on 19 July, 2007

In view of our aforesaid analysis we are disposed to hold that the law laid down in the cases of Lakhan Lal Sonkar (supra), M.S. Wakankar (supra) and Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jheera) (supra), lay down the law correctly being in consonance and accord of the decisions of the Apex Court and the decision rendered in M/s. Ram and Co. (supra), does not lay down the law soundly and accordingly the same is hereby overruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Rama And Company vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 3 April, 2007

22. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also cited two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, which were delivered after coming into force of Adhiniyam, 2005 and in which the Division Bench has held that an appeal shall lie against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge against the order passed by the Tribunal. These two judgments cited by learned Counsel for the appellant are in the case of State of M.P. and v. M.S. Wakankar 2007 (1) MPLJ 99 and in the case of Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jhira) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey W.A. No. 310/2006, decided on 14-8-2006.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - S Yadav - Full Document

M/S Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2017

13. The question as to whether an intra-court appeal would lie against an order passed under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India came for consideration before Full Bench of this High Court in Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) (supra) wherein, the expression "in exercise of original jurisdiction" appearing in Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 came up for interpretation in conflicting view of the Division Bench judgment in Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jhira) Vs. Sumit Ranjan Dubey Jhira), W.A.No.310/2006, Lakhanlal Sonkar V. Gun Carriage Factory [2007(1) MPHT 335] and State of Madhya Pradesh 7 R.P.No.413/2017 and others Vs. M.S. Wakankar and another [2007 (1) MPLJ 99] and the other in Rama and Co. V. State of M.P. and another 2007(3) MPLJ 154 (WA.342/2006).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - S Yadav - Full Document

State Of M.P. vs Mid India Developers Pvt.Ltd & Anr. on 13 January, 2020

He placed reliance on the decisions in the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP & others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1) MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha & others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4) MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Bhagat Singh Parsaiya vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... on 13 June, 2022

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while taking this Court to the minutes of scrutiny committee submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in past were taken into consideration and while taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, the employer rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was dead-wood and therefore, rightly retired compulsorily. Counsel for the respondents places reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. M.S. Wakankar and another, 2007 (1) JLJ 363 and submits that even if the compulsory retirement is not found to be in-conformity with the law laid down, Signature Not Verified the respondents be extended liberty to scrutinize the case of the petitioner SAN Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE afresh while taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad vs Board Of Revenue on 15 May, 2018

He placed reliance on the decisions in the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP & others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1) MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W. A No.338 of 2018 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others) & others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4) MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Secretary Rashtriya Colliery Khadan ... vs Sub Area Manager on 20 May, 2024

After arguments at length, learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. M.S. Wakankar and another 2007(1) M.P.L.J 99 (para -7) and further in the light of Rule 2 (7)(c) of chapter 4 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 prays for conversion of this misc. petition into writ petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document
1