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.
Vishnu Chakrawarty Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Vishnu Chakrawarty versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17871/2012 29/10/2012 Shri U.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Singhanpuri Tahsil and District-Katni. Vide order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Katni, petitioner has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Katangi Kala in the same district. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made on two counts, the fiRs.ground is that the transfer is contrary to the Transfer Policy in as much as the transfer order is issued after the period stipulated in the policy for issuing the transfer of the petitioner. As far as the aforesaid ground is concerned, merely because the transfer policy is violated and the transfer order is passed after a period stipulated in the Transfer Policy, judicial review of such an order cannot be made in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus S.L.Abbas AIR 199.SC 123...
Akhand Pratap Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17829/12 29/10/12 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Tahsildar' in Churhat, Distt. Sidhi. Vide order dated 12/07/12 Annexure P-1, he was transferred from Distt. Sidhi to Distt. Balaghat. Inter alia contending that he has to look after his old parents and his transfer to a far off place to Balaghat from Sidhi is not tenable, he submitted the representation and when the representation is not considered, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.12746/12 (s).The writ petition was considered and decided by this Court vide order Annexure P-4 dated 17/08/12. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation is considered and rejected vide order Annexure P-5 dated 10th October, 2012 and, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court. It is pointed out that the grievance of the petitioner has not be...
Ramgopal Kaurav Vs. Hanumat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.16648 o29. 10.2012 Shri A.Rajeshwar Rao, 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 order dated 298.12 Annex.P/4 passed by I ADJ Gadarwara in Co.No.30-A/08 which has been renumbered as Co.No.273/12, whereby his application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC to explain some circumstances on record, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order, I have found that whatsoever amendment has been proposed by the petitioner by way of an application Annx.P/3, the same appears to be the evidence which is not necessary to plead in the pleadings and basic foundation of such facts has already been pleaded in the written statement. So such additional particulars are not required in the written statement. I am also of the view that at the time of recording the evidence, the...
Basant Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Basant Kumar Vishwakarma versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Shri P.R.Bhave, Senior Advocate, with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Shri V.K.Shukla for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Interalia contending that petitioner has not been granted absorption or appointment in the department and further contending that private respondents 3 to 5 have been absorbed vide Annexure P/1 dated 6.2.1999, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner and various other persons were posted as Section Writers on temporary and adhoc basis vide order-dated 19.11.1993. Petitioner continued to work on the said post when vide Annexures P/1 and P/2, various persons like respondents 3 to 5 have been granted regular appointment in the department whereas petitioner has been discriminated upon and no appointment has been granted to him. Accordingly, claiming similar benefit as has been granted to private respondents, petitioner has filed this writ petiti...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Nath Pradhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.A.No.824/2012 State of M.P.& another Yogendra Nath Pradhan 29.10.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for appellants. Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.21646/11(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent against the order Annexure P/1 dated 1.12.2011 cancelling the increment allowed to the respondent with effect from 1.7.2011, was allowed and the order Annexure P/1 was quashed. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the respondent was punished for withholding one increment without cumulative effect vide order Annexure P/3 dated 9.8.2010, so increment which was allowed to the respondent with effect from 1.7.2011 was rightly cancelled. Learned Single Judge without considering this aspect has wrongly allowed the writ petition. Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the punishment of the respondent was for the per...
Mohammad Shahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17681/2012 Mohammad Shahid versus State of M.P.& ANo.29.10.2012 Heard Dr. Anand Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent Information Commissioner to decide the petitioner's appeal pending before him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petition has been filed pursuant to the disposal of W.P No.16143/2012 filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief by order dated 28.9.2012 which was disposed of only on the ground that the number of the appeal pending before the Information Commissioner was not mentioned. It is submitted that the present petition has not been filed by the petitioner by mentioning the number of the appeal pending before the said authority. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the considered opinion that filing of the present petition for the same relief, as prayed for in...
Vishwanath Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Writ Petition No.18059/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned 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...
Mohammad Saleem Raeen Vs. Dr. Khaleel Mohammad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.14642 o29. 10.2012 Shri P.N.Das, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.Banerjee, counsel for the respondent. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.7.11 passed by the III Civil Judge Class-I Panna in Co.No.70-A/11 whereby dismissing their application filed under section 151 of the CPC, they have not been permitted to mark the exhibit on their alleged document (agreement to sale which is written in the shape of sale deed).Undisputedly such document is not properly stamped as per requirement of the Stamp Act relating to the sale deed. Petitioners counsel, after taking me through the papers placed on the record argued that by virtue of the aforesaid document the petitioners came into possession of the disputed property and in order to examine their nature of possession such document could be marked as exhibit on the record and the same could be taken into consideration by the trial court for co...
Surendra Mani Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17720/20129. 10.2012 Shri Sajidulla Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The petitioners have come before this Court claiming the benefit of upgradation in the pay scale on completion of 24 years of services as also for grant of Kramonnati. It is contended that as per the Scheme of the Rules, upgradation is provided in the pay scale, but even after upgradation, on completion of certain years of services, the Kramonnati is also to be granted. It is contended that the case of petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Arun Pandey and another versus State of M.P.& another [W.P.No.7352/2008(s)].which has been finally decided on 7.9.2012. Such contentions of the petitioners are examined. This Court has categorically decided the controveRs.in the aforesaid case of Arun Pandey (supra) in the following manner :- The only grievance put forth by the petitioners is that ...
Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
dinesh kumar tiwari 1 W.P.No.17558/2012 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 Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Barbaspur, Tahsil Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur. By the impugned order he has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and breach of transfer policy. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition for assailing the order of transfer are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Those grounds are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the department and a decision taken. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with a detailed representation, the competent authority shall consider and...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »