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.
Surndra Kumar Payasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.18043/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentio...
Nand Kumar Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.18027/12 (s) 29/10/12 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an 'Executive Engineer' in the Water Resources Department. Vide order dated 12/10/12, he has been transferred from Water Resources Department, Betul to the office of Chief Engineer (O & M) Water Resources Department, Bhopal. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that as per the circulars and policies of the State Govt. , the competent authority to transfer the petitioner is the State Govt. and not the Chief Engineer of the Department and as the petitioner is being transferred by the Chief Engineer, it is stated that the transfer is unsustainable. That apart, pointing out various personal inconveniences due to education of petitioner's child who is a student of Class-XII in district Betul, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am o...
Anoop Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Anoop Saxena & Ors.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17920 29. 10.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. Considering the fact that the competent authority to take action is stationed at Bhopal, office objection is overruled. 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 t...
Naveen Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Naveen Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. I.A.No.14018/2012 has been filed seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition for the present, with liberty to file a separate petition if required on a subsequent date in case claim of the petitioner is not considered as promised by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Shakun Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Shakun Pandey versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Shri Arvind Pathak for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Considering the fact that this petition is only against an interlocutory order and the main appeal is pending before the Commissioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 Commissioner, Rewa, before whom the appeal is pending, is directed to decide the appeal after hearing all concerned in accordance to law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ku. Vinita Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17347/2012 29-10-2012 Shri Arvind Chouksey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioner is working as an ANM on contract basis in Primary Health Centre Budwa (Bemak).District Shahdol. By the impugned order Annexure P-10 dated 12-09-2010, the petitioner has been posted in Sub Health Centre Budwa. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was working at Sub Health Centre Budwa. where after vaccination undertaken by the petitioner a child had expired and therefore, due to certain reasons the petitioner was posted to Primary Health Centre, Budwa(Bemak).District Shahdol, not if the petitioner is again transferred to Sub Health Centre Budwa, the petitioner apprehends that previous incident may again be recollected by the persons of the area and may create problem to the petitioner. Accordingly, submitting that the petitioner be transferred and posted in any other place except Sub Health Centre Budwa, ...
Vinod Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17360/2012 (Vinot Verma versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012 Heard Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents/police authorities on the complaint filed by him regarding the incident of the death of the petitioner's brother. In the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Betul is directed to look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute anybody but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and if action has not been taken in accordance with law, issue appropriate direction do to so and ensure that the faith of the public in the police administration is strengthened and affirmed. To enable the Superintendent of Police, Betul to do so, a copy of...
Deepak Kumar Bokadia (Basor0 Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17691/2012 Deepak Kumar Bokadia versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.10.2012 Shri Prabhakar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue his representation, Annexure P-12, before the concerned authority. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, in case the petitioner approaches the authority, it would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Ramnaresh Vs. Mus. Besani Kachi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
S.A.No.1248 o29. 10.2012 Shri P.K.Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.14440/2010 which is an application seeking leave to file appeal. Considering the language of Section 100 of CPC and in the facts and circumstances of the case, leave to file appeal is granted. Also heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as barred by limitation ?.2. Whether the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1 without joining the appellant as a party though a specific pleading of purchase of the suit land subsequently in the name of appellant has been raised, however the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from the defect of non- joiner of necessary party ?.. As the notice has been accepted on behalf of plaintiff/respond...
Govind Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.12499/20129. 10.2012 Shri Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »