Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Smt. Mamta Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.16302/2011 W.P.NO.16302/2011 01.10.2012 Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. This petition is directed against order dated 07.06.12 passed by respondent No.2, Director Department of Mining and Geology. As per petitioner's own declaration in paragraph 3 against said order he has preferred a revision under Rule 58 of M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, 1996 which is pending consideration before the State Government. Since the petitioner has already availed a statutory remedy and the same is pending consideration before the revisional authority, we are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. Instead, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the revision before the Competent Authority who is expected to dwell upon the same as expeditiously as possible on its own merit. Petition is disposed of finally in above terMs.Certif...
Smt. Leela Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16259/12 (s) 1/10/12 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioners claim regularization in service in accordance with certain directions already issued by this Court in W.P.No.6046/07 Dinesh Gupta versus State of M.P.and others decided on 20th February, 2009 and again in W.P.No.5440/10 Rajesh Patel versus State of M.P.and others decided on 10/05/10 vide order Annexure P-5. It is seen that in the matter of regularization of employees like the petitioner, certain directions have already been issued by the Benches of this Court in the cases as referred to hereinabove. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the directions already given, examine their case and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to emphasize that this Court h...
Kashiram Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Kashiram Gond versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16635 1. 10.2012: Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Vanpal in Nayagaon, Range Sagoni, District Damoh and by the impugned order dated 11.9.2012 petitioner is being transferred to Chandna Taradehi Circle, District Damoh, as Circle Assistant. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner has 8 months for retirement he is to retire on 30.6.2013 and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Shri S.S.Bisen, points out that as petitioner is only transferred from one office to another in the same district the grounds raised are not applicable to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that petition is only transferred within district and grounds raised by petitioner are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permis...
Smt. Chandrawati Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16234/2012 01.10.2012 Shri I.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 0...
Kamta Prasad Gujar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16145/2012 01.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/20...
Arvind Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16053/12 1/10/12 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the imposition of punishment i.e.a minot punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect under Rule 10 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The punishment in question is imposed on 3rd October, 2011 and not this petition has been filed after a period of more than one year. The delay in filing of the writ petition has not been explained in para 4, even though Shri Dharmadhikari submitted that there is a delay in filing of the writ petition. The fact remains that stoppage of increment amounts to certain denial of monetary benefits which is a recurring loss. Accordingly, I find no ground to dismiss this writ petition on the ground of delay. That apart, it is stated by Shri Dharmadhikari that against the order of punishment imposed by the discipli...
Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16560 1. 10.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioners are that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioneRs.Petitioners claim grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Shri R.Parshu Ram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Con.C.No.1586/20101. 10.2012 Shri Prabhat Asati, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents on advance copy. An objection is raised with respect to arraying respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as party in the present contempt petition as they have nothing to do with the order passed by this Court not they are required to comply with the order passed in the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid objection, the names of respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 be struck off from the array of respondents during the couRs.of the day by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice of this contempt petition to respondents No.4 and 7 only. Notice on behalf of respondent No.4 is accepted by Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, who seeks four weeks' time to file the reply. Process fee be paid for issuance of notice of this contempt petition to respondent No.7 within seven days. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. Li...
Chandrabhan Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.14338/2011 Chandrabhan Tamrakar versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.10.2012 Shri Dharmendra Soni learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the matter before respondent no.2 in accordance with law. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does approach the respondent no.2 by filing a representation alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Vijay JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.387/2009 Vijay Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Dubey. For the respondent: Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 1st day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2009 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Narsinghpur in Special Case No.47/2006 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the NDPS Act.) and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac. In default of fine one years simple im...
- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »