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.
Ramashankar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17938/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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 26.01.2007, 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 ...
Smt. Aruna Pal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17378/12 29/10/12 Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the Samvida Shala Shikshak eligibility test for being empanelled as a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I and also as a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. In the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner with regard to Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I Annexure P-1, petitioner was shown to be a candidate belonging to the Unreserved category whereas in the mark-sheet issued with regard to Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II, petitioner was shown to be a candidate belonging to the O.B.C.category. Infact, petitioner belongs to the O.B.C.category but inadvertently in the mark-sheet issued for the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, her category is incorrectly shown as unreserved. The respondent accepted the request of the petitioner and converted her category from General to O.B.C.in Grade-II examination but not converted her category in Grade-I examination. Even though, respondent w...
Ramsevak Chourasia Vs. Sushil Kumar Chouhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.16562/12. 29.10.2012 Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission of this petition as well as of I.A.No.12967/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the trial Court, returnable within six weeks be issued to the respondent no.1 failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As the respondents no.2 to 5 have been impleaded as co-defendant with the petitioner in the trial Court and any of them has not challenged the impugned order hence their presence is not required in the matter. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, the trial Court is directed not to pass any final judgment/decree in the matter unless the order of this Court. Certified copy as per rules (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Praveen Kumar Gour Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.16614 o29. 10.2012 Shri Awinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 6.9.2012, (Ann. P-6) passed by the respondent No.3 Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.339-B-121/2011-2012 whereby allowing the proceeding of the respondents under Section 248 of M.P.L.R.C.the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of disputed land to the respondents authority and the order dated 14.9.2012, (Ann. P-9) passed by the SDO in Revenue Appeal No.75 (B)/121/11-12 whereby the interim stay granted against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar has been vacated. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, after perusing the papers placed on record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority, i.e.SDO to hear and adjudicate the aforesa...
Mithlesh Kumar Shandilya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17531/20129. 10.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The grievance of the petitioner is that after so many years of passing the order in his favour, granting him seniority with retrospective effect, promotion consequent upon grant of such seniority has been recalled by the impugned order and the petitioner has not been asked to be reverted. The facts as have come on record indicate that the petitioner and one Shri Khemchand Vishwakarma have taken part in limited competitive examination, which was conducted in the year 1988 for direct recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Shri Khemchand Vishwakarma was selected and petitioner was not selected. The order of appointment was issued only in respect of Shri Khemchand Vishwakarma. However, in the year 1988 the petitioner had never made any claim not had agitated the matter before the Court of law against his non-selection, pointing o...
Smt.Leela Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Smt. Leela Tiwari versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17999 29. 10.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Auxiliary NuRs.Mid-Wife in the office of Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent Bhopal (Jaypee Hospital) and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Vidisha. Even though challenge to the order of transfer is made on various grounds, records indicate that the representation filed by petitioner is pending and Civil Surgeon vide Annexure P-2 dated 24.7.2012 has sought for cancellation of petitioner's transfer on various grounds. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner after taking note of recommendation made and decide it in accordance to law within four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner be permitted to work at her present place of po...
Chhidi Lal Vs. Smt.Pyari Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
S.A.No.223 o29. 10.2012 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Rajneesh Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law : Whether the lower appellate court was justified to partition the property received to deceased Mohan only in two shares and the judgment and decree so passed by the lower appellate court is in conformity to law and not perveRs.?. Issue notice to respondent No.1 only on payment of process fee within a week. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. Until further orders status quo with respect to possession on the suit land shall be maintained. List this appeal for final disposal in the list of motion hearing cases after service of notice to respondent No.1. C.c.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge DV...
Victor Christian Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17299 o29. 10.2012 Shri Siddarth Gulati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the show-cause notice dated 29.9.12 Annex.P/3 issued by the authority of respondent No.3 to petitioner under section 248(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959 (for short `the Code') for removing the alleged encroachment from the place stated in such notice. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner's counsel how the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show-cause notice is entertainable and more-so when to challenge such notice, the forum of revision under the provision of the aforesaid Code is available to the petitioner, on which, instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the reply of the show cause notice so also t file the appropriate revision before the appropri...
Haibat Rao Khade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.13195/2012 29.10.2012 Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The office has reported that the notices sent by registered post to the respondents on 13.09.2012 have not yet been returned back. The notices were sent to the respondents by registered A.D.and not since more than 30 days period has elapsed from the date of issuance of notices, it is deemed that the notices are served on the respondents. Since no response to the interim prayer has been filed by the respondents, it is directed that the challan be not filed against the petitioner pursuance to any enquiry/investigation which is not being conducted by the Economic Offences Bureau till further direction of this Court. List the petition after four weeks for further orders of this interim prayer. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Prathavilal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.9333/2008 29.10.2012 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 4. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In terms of the Division bench direction of this Court, it is necessary on the part of respondents to produce the relevant documents in original such as Form-B, the employees pension Scheme declaration Form, identity card and Form-V and relevant papers where the date of birth of the petitioner is declared. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 informes that some of the records have been received by him, but Form-B has not been made available to him for which some more time is needed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 informed that he has received the list of Provident Fund Account number from the employer recently and he would take about 15 days' time to collect the relevant documents to produce before this Court for verification. Considering the aforesaid, time as prayed...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »