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.
Sudhir Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Sudhir Saxena & Anr,. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17910 29. 10.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer 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 petiti...
Sukhram Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.16959/2012 (Sukhran Singh Thakur versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.10.2012 Heard Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 28.08.2012 by which the respondent authorities have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to deposit the lease rent for the quarry lease for sand allotted to the petitioner in village Dhobisarra, District Seoni. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said lease for sand was allotted to the petitioner but the possession thereon was not handed over to him in time, in spite of which the respondent authorities initially issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking to cancel the lease on 27.04.2012 and thereafter have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 28.08.2012 seeking to recover the lease rent, failing which the lease agreement with the petitioner would be...
Dumari Lal Markam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Dumari Lal Markam versus State of MP and another. 29.10.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same District and due to certain reasons the Sarpanch has requested for cancellation of transfer of the petitioner. The request and representation of the petitioner are still pending before the competent authority. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith a detailed representation and relevant documents to respondent No.2 the CEO concerned, within one week from today, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks thereof. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner be permitted to work at his present place of posting, in case nobody has been posted in his place. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dispo...
Babu Singh Vs. Gorakh Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
S.A.No.1111/2012 29.10.2012 Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravi Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Heard on I.A.No.11948/2012, which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Issue notice. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice of this application to other respondents, on payment of P.F.within three days. Until admission of this appeal, status-quo with respect to possession of the suit property shall be maintained by the parties. Let record of the two Courts below be called for. List this appeal thereafter for admission and for further orders on I.A.No.11948/2012 in the month of December, 2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Rajkumar Mishra Vs. Shri Ashok Shende
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Contempt Appeal No.02/2012 29/10/2012 Shri A.D.Mishra , Advocate for the appellant. This contempt appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, challenging the order dated 04/09/2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.1343/2012 by which an application filed by the appellant for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent, was dismissed. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, reads thus:- 19. Appeals - (1) An appeals shall lie as of right from any order to decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) Where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal. The appellate court may order that- (a) The execution of the pu...
Devi Prasad Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Devi Prasad Sahu versus State 1 W.P.No.17561/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agricultural Extension Officer in Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad. He has been transferred by the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 to District Katni. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that the District Election Officer and the Collector, Hoshangabad has appointed the petitioner to discharge the duties of BLO with regard to preparation of voter identity card and as the transfer is in violation to the policy with regard to transfer of an employee who has been allotted election duty, challenge is made to the impugned order. It is seen from the record that the order of transfer is issued on 13.7.2012 and the order passed by the District Election Officer and the Collector, Hoshangabad Annexure P/1 granting election duty to the petitioner is iss...
Gaurishankar Gupta Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.16631 o29. 10.2012 Shri A. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.applicants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 12.9.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Panna in Civil Suit No.14-A/12, whereby their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as defendants in such suit filed by the respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the papers placed on record, it is apparent from the impugned plaint that the suit has been filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff against respondent No.2 for declaration, partition and separate possession and perpetual injunction on the basis of some sale deed whereby they had received the joint title over the disputed property from one Mahendra Kumar Gupta. As per submission of the petitioneRs.counsel and the application of the petit...
Bhagwansingh Alias Phool Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17957/2012 (Bhagwan Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take up appropriate proceedings against the impugned order before the concerned Commissioner. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days from today along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned Commissioner shall entertain and decide the proceedings taken up by the petitioner on merits and shall not dismiss the same only on the ground of limitation. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ankit Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Ankit Kumar Chaturvedi versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Shri Alok Kumar for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to selection of respondent No.6 on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ramesh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
ramesh verma versus state 1 W.P.No.18001/2012 29.10.2012 Shri D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 on advance notice. Challenging an order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the Assistant Labour and Personnel Officer, M.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal as contained in Annexure P/1 compulsorily retiring the petitioner after completing 20 years of service / 50 years of age in accordances to the provisions contained in a Circular issued by Government of Madhya Pradesh in the Department of General Administration, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the policies and Circulars issued by the State Government for compulsorily retiring the Government employee is not applicable to an employee working in M.P.State Road Transport Corporation and on the basis of Circular of General Administration Department petitioner cannot ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »