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.
Devi Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panc ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Devi Prasad Shukla versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17931/2012 29/10/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner is on deputation in the Rural Engineering services and is being transferred contrary to the option given to the petitioner with regard to his posting, prima-facie, transfer of the petitioner seems to be contrary to the terms and conditions of the deputation. Accordingly, operation of the order dated 8.10.2012 transferring the petitioner is directed to be stayed and petitioner permitted to be posted in the present place of posting at Raisen till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Kunwar Lal Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.16224/2012 29.10.2012 Shri A. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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 discu...
Ram Gopal Vs. Ramadhar Vaishya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.12711/12. 29.10.2012 Shri V.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Waidhan, District Singrauli in Civil Original Suit No.143-A/04 whereby, the applications filed under order 8 rule 1(A)/3 and Order 13 rule 10 of CPC so also the application filed under order 47 rule 1 of CPC to review the order dated 9.7.2012, have been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments in response of some query of the Court based on the papers placed on the record, petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the objections and the grounds stated in the petition, subject to final judgment and decree of the trial Court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial Court to co...
Smt. Munni Devi Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17937/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is 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 in...
Samaylal Biyar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.16591/12. 29.10.2012 Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents concerned to correct the revenue record of land bearing New No.406 area 0.98 hectare of total 2.26 hectare thereof situated at village Nagwa tahsil and District Singrauli by mentioning the name of the petitioner in such record. In addition to it, the appropriate direction to the respondents to comply the order dated 30.9.2007 (Annexure-P-5) is also made. Having heard the counsel on perusing the record, I have found that the representation (Annexure-P-6) with respect of the dispute raised in this petition is still pending before the respondent no.2 i.e.Collector Singrauli, hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the petition,...
D.S. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
D.S.Patel versus State 1 W.P.No.17794/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner was working in the Police Department as an Additional Superintendent of Police. He has been retired from service on 31st December 2008. However due to certain act committed by him while in service a charge sheet has been issued to him on 4.6.2009. The allegation in charge sheet pertains to improper investigation into a criminal case bearing Crime No.284/2006 instituted in Police Station, Nohta, District Damoh for offences under Section 376 read with Section 506B of I.P.C.It is the grievance of the petitioner that charge sheet has been issued for the allegation which is not correct. Accused has been acquitted as the prosecutrix did not turn up for giving evidence against the accused person. By filing documents pertaining to criminal case and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, petitioner has tried to ind...
Ravishankar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.18187/2012 Ravi Shanker Dubey versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.10.2012 Heard Shri Monesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that inspite of orders passed by the Collector, Katni in the proceedings pending before him directing respondent no.3 to produce certified copy of the letter dated 7.1.2011, the respondent no.3 is not producing the same and without production of this most important and relevant document the respondent no.2 has not directed the petitioner to file written arguments in the matter. It is submitted that in the circumstances the respondent no.3 be directed to produce the concerned documents for proper adjudication in the matter before proceeding further. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under sections 322 and 323 of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 are pending befor...
Jeevan Lal Lodhi Vs. Rajneesh Nayak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Contempt Case No.1590/2012 29/10/2012 Ms.Sneh Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that she may be permitted to withdraw this contempt petition as it has rendered infructuous. Prayer is allowed. This contempt petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o04. 09/2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Agrawal, Shri Anuj Agrawal, and Kumari Chhoti Bai, Advocates for the appellant in various matteRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited. At the request of the appellant hearing of the appeal is adjourned for 20th September, 2012. Be listed for hearing along with analogous matter on the aforesaid date. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju...
Nand Kishor Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
M.C.C.No.1169 29. 10-2012 Heard Shri Manot Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner on I.A.No.11220/2012 for condonation of delay in filing this petition which is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the application for restoration of W.P.No.9558/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not aware of this Court's peremptory order dated 23-7-2012 as he could not come to the Court on that date due to his illness and, therefore, the default could not be cleared within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution. It is also submitted that the default has been cleared by petitioner later on by filing copies of the relevant document. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the counsel for the petitioner and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration...
Shashi Kant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.15578/2012 Shashi Kant Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.10.2012 Shri Surya Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking production of his daughter Poonam Mishra who is said to be missing since 16/17.8.2012. The petitioner has also alleged that his daughter has been taken away by respondent nos.6 & 7. The respondents, pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, have filed a return and have submitted that the police authorities after registering a missing person report vide report no.15/12 have also taken action against respondent nos.6 & 7 by registering cases against them at Police Station Devendra Nagar, Panna at Crime No.232/12 under sections 363 and 366 IPC respectively. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are making all efforts to trace out the missing person and shall ensure that the investigation reach...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »