Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 Judgments
ittan @ Darvesh Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.16270/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.14388/2012 which is an application for taking additional documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Additional documents are taken on record. Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an interim order be passed directing the release of the petitioner. Admittedly, the order of detention was passed on 20.11.2011. The detenue has filed the petition on 21.9.2012, i.e.after a period of approximately 10 months. Having regard to the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court, we do not find any sufficient ground to pass an interim order. Accordingly, prayer for interim relief is rejected. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing on 5.11.2012. (S.A.Bobde) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Chief Managing Director Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.16852 o31. 10.2012 Shri Rajeev Barkur, counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the respondent/bank to return the sum of disputed two drafts which have not been encashed by the person in whose name the drafts were obtained by the petitioner from such bank. It is noted that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner had approached the District Consumer Forum for the aforesaid prayer and such application was voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner stating that the bank is ready to settle the matter with further contention that the petitioner shall not claim anything in future before any forum against the respondents. As per further averments of the petition, subsequent to withdrawal of the aforesaid application from the District Consumer Forum, the bank finally refused to settle the matter and refund the aforesaid sum of two drafts, on which, the petitioner has come to thi...
Tag this Judgment!Sadaram Kourav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.10590/2012 (Sadaram Kaurav versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the compliant filed by the petitioner in respect of his missing son. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1, Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law...
Tag this Judgment!Akhilesh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Appeal No.985/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 06/07/2012 passed in Writ Petition No.9647/2012 (s).by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 05/06/2012, by which his posting, after promotion was changed from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Hoshagabad, District Hoshangabad to Government Agriculture Higher Secondary School, Pawarkheda, District Hoshangabad. Learned Single Judge has found that one lady teacher namely Smt. Bakhtawar Khan was promoted and she was posted in Government Girls Higher Secondary School and consequently the posting order of the appellant was changed to Government Agriculture Higher Secondary School, Pawarkheda, District Hoshangabad. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to file afresh representation before...
Tag this Judgment!Sabana Azami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17654/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents. The only controveRs.involved in the writ petition is claim of consideration for promotion as is prescribed in the rules known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').It is contended that as per the Schedule IV of the aforesaid Rules Assistant Adhyapak are to be promoted on the post of Adhyapak on completion of requisite years of service. According to the petitioner she has completed the requisite years of services yet her claim has not been considered. Looking to the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 to ascertain the vacancies on the post of Adhyapak and to convene a DPC in terms of the Rules aforesaid expeditiously to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion on the post of Adhyapak. Let the aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
M.C.C.No.1002/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that he has moved an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this restoration application, a copy of which is made available to us. Considering aforesaid, we allow the application and condone the delay in filing this restoration application. It appears that because of the peremptory order passed in writ appeal, which was not complied with, the writ appeal was dismissed. It was submitted by Shri Tripathi that the order was complied with but belatedly. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect, we allow this restoration application and direct office to restore the Writ Appeal No.525/2012 to its original number and place before appropriate Bench. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhlal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Sukhlal Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18160 31. 10.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred from one Panchayat to another in the same district. Challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner by contending that petitioner is a heart patient and Minister of the Panchayat Department has recommended for cancellation of his transfer. The grounds raised by the petitioner are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer can be made by this Court. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of departmental remedies available the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Rajneesh Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 R.P.No.684/11 31/10/12 Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel with Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Maninder Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, an appropriate committee was constituted. The committee has examined the cases of more than 480 daily wages employees working in the University and has recommended their cases for regularization. not University has forwarded the matter to the State Govt. and is awaiting response from the State Govt. to take a final decision. Even though, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is pending for more than three years and on more than two previous occasion, extension of time has been given, inspite thereof, nothing has been done. The committee which has been entrusted with the task of considering the cases of regularization and as more than 480 employees are involved in it, it has ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankat Mochan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.A.No.955 of 2012. 31.10.2012. Shri K.P.Singh for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Shashank Shekhar for respondent No.4. Shri V.K.Shukla for respondent No.5. This appeal is directed against an order dt.8.8.2012 in W.P.No.10927/2012 by which an ad-interim writ has been issued in favour of the respondent. This order has been assailed by the appellant on various grounds. On being inquired into, it is stated by the appellant and also by the State that they have filed reply in the matter and matter before the Single Bench is ripe for hearing. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts, we find that the matter deserves to be heard finally and accordingly we propose to dispose of the matter finally in the following manner : (1) We request learned single Judge to hear the matter in the last week of November, 2012, as per his convenience. (2) Both the parties shall cooperate with the learned single Bench and shall not seek adjournment unnecessarily. With the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavan Kishore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17015/12 (s) 31/10/12 Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner by this writ petition is seeking relief for grant of pension after counting the service rendered by him in the erstwhile department. Records indicate that claiming the said benefit, petitioner has already represented and the same is pending consideration before respondent No.2. In view of the above, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merit, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months thereof. Respondents shall decide the claim by a speaking order after recording reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »