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.
Gopal Vs. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.16918/2012 30.10.2012. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 13.9.2012 (Ann. P.6) passed by the Board of Revenue, State of Madhya Pradesh in revenue Revision No.916/PBR/2012 affirming the the order passed by the Collector, Burhanpur in Revision No.10/11-12, whereby dismissing their revision, the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar Khaknar in Revenue Case No.6-A-6/2011-12 dismissing their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the aforesaid revenue case filed by respondent No.4 to 11 under section 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has been affirmed. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner counsel whether without recording the evidence by the Naib Tahsildar in the impugned matter the factual matrix stated in the impugned application of Order 7 ru...
Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs. Shri Dr. Deoraj Birdi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Surendra Prasad Shukla versus Dr. Deoraj Birdi and another. 30.10.2012. Shri Anirudh Pandey for the applicant. Interalia contending that certain directions issued on 6.9.2012, in W.P.No.14417/2012, have not been complied with, this contempt application has been filed. Applicant was working as Range Assistant in Kurai Range, District Seoni and was transferred to Kopi Jhola in the same District vide order-dated 14.7.2012. Applicant filed the writ petition challenging the said transfer mainly on two grounds. The fiRs.ground was that the transfer is in breach of transfer policy and therefore, the same is illegal. The second ground was that the applicants daughter is a student of Class XII and, therefore, if the applicant is transferred at this point of time, it would adversely affect her education. This Court found that the aforesaid grounds raised have to be considered by the competent authority of the department and an endeavour should be made to post the applicant in a place where educa...
Shri Mohan Sugar Mills Dhanwada Vs. Hemant Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.17310 o30. 10.2012 Shri Bhaskar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. After arguing for near about 15 minutes on the question of admission, on asking the petitioner's counsel how presence of the present petitioner is necessary in the matter when the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/ respondent No.1 and 2 against the respondents No.3 to 12 only for perpetual injunction and not for declaration or other title, o n which, instead to argue further counsel seeks for and is granted short adjournment to examine the legal position in this regard. Let this matter be placed in the next week for further arguments on admission. Office is also directed to place the IA No.13878/12 with the record (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Anil Kumar Arakh Vs. Board of Secondary Education M.P. Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.12539/2012 (Anil Kumar Arakh ..Vs..Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal) 30-10-2012 Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As directed by this Court, the answer sheets of the petitioner of the subject of Economics have been produced by the counsel for the respondent/Board and as directed the subject experts, Shri A.N.Shukla, PGT (Economics) Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, GCF, Jabalpur and Smt. Rukmani Kanojia, Lecturer (Economics).Govt. HSS Medical Campus, Garha, Jabalpur, are also present. Both the experts have examined the answer sheets of the petitioner. According to both the examineRs.who have independently examined the answer sheets of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner should be awarded 45 and 49 marks respectively instead of 18 marks which were originally awarded to the petitioner. It is stated by the subject experts that the original...
Thakur Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17955/20130. 10.2012 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the controveRs.raised in the present petition has been decided in the case of Gopi Pillai versus M.P.E.B., Jabalpur and another, 2002(2) MPLJ 278 and it has been held that the persons if absorbed in the regular establishment from the Work Charged Contingency Establishment, they would be entitled to the benefit of regular pension in terms of the provisions of Rule 42 of the M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is contended by learned Counsel for th petitioner that this particular aspect was again considered by this Court in case of Mool Chand Yadav versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.13629/2007(S).decided on 19.12.2008. The fact remains that the petitioner was only a work charged contingency employee and was never absorbed on a regular establishment, therefore, the order passed in case of Gopi Pillai (supra) may not be applicable a...
Shiva Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Writ Petition No.17136/12. 31.10.2012 Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State- respondents no.1 to 3 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the respondent no.3 Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Sagar, whereby, the timing of petitioners bus which is being plied between Sagar to Malthone has been changed at the request of the respondent no.4 without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In addition to the aforesaid, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to ply his bus on the timing mentioned in original permit, is also made. Having heard the petitioners counsel, on perusing the papers and the concerning provision of Section 72 & 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, I have found the lega...
Nisar Ahmed Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.18051/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petition...
Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.7415 o29. 10.2012 Shri Sudesh Mishra, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for respondents No.3. After taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the Administrative Member of the Board of Revenue, petitioners counsel argued that the order dated 27.7.04 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.848-one/04, in a belated review petition of the respondent filed after near about 8 yeaRs.has been stayed by the Board of Revenue and thereafter such revision petition was adjourned with a direction to list the same on 15.6.12. Meanwhile the record of the competent court and the appellate court were also requisitioned by the Board of Revenue. In continuation by referring the order sheet dated 28.8.12 of the Board of Revenue he pointed out that in the lack of availability of the records of subordinate courts again such review petition was adjourned with a direction to list the same on 25.9.12 and as per...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohanlal Jangela
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 R.P.No.658/12 29/10/12 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the petitioner. Dr.R.B. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.1. This application has been filed by the State Govt. through the Department of School Education seeking review of an order passed by this Court on 15/12/10 in W.P.No.2921/09. The said writ petition was filed by the non-applicant Shri Mohanlal Jangela and it was pointed out by him that he is entitled to two advance increments in view of the law laid down in the case of Asha Saxena versus State of M.P.and others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06. When the petition came up for hearing on 15/12/10, the same was allowed on the very fiRs.day without notice to the department concerned and the respondents were directed to confer to the petitioner the benefit accruing to him by virtue of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) . Now, in this review application, it is pointed out by the department concerned that the benefits of granting a...
Vansahpati Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.7632/20129. 10.2012 Shri Santosh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.The only grievance of the petitioners is that though they were entitled to grant of Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service in terms of the circular of the State Government but the said benefit was not granted from the date the petitioners have completed 24 years of service. On the other hand they have been extended the benefit of second Kramonnati from a later date. It is contended that the petitioners have been put to financial loss because of such erroneous action of the respondents. It is further contended that the similar issue was considered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Dr. Om Prakash Sharma versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2008(2) M.P.H.T.(CG) 67, and it has been held that persons like petitioners would be entitled to grant of benefit of second Kramonnati from the date they have completed the period of 24 years of service. It is further contended that similar cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »