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.
U.S. Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 u.s.thakur versus state W.P.No.17852/2012 18/10/2012: Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in the respondents department and vide order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from Seoni to Annuppur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has filed W.P.No.9201/2008 (s) for grant of Krammonati. The said writ petition was allowed and when the direction was not implemented, petitioner has filed contempt application No.1529/2010 in which certain directions were issued by this Court on 20th July, 2011 vide Annexure P/2 and because petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, attributing malafide on such consideration petitioner seeks quashment of order. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate refutes the aforesaid and submit that petitioner has remained at Seoni for more than 3 yeaRs.more than 103 employ...
Ram Kumar Vs. Sunder Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 W.P.No.16393 o18. 10.2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days, notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.12916/12, returnable within three weeks, be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand automatically without further reference to the Bench. Case be listed accordingly on such date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices. The interim prayer shall be considered after receiving the service report of the aforesaid notices. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Narayan Das Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
W.A.No.1069/2012 (Narayan Das Sen Vs State of MP and otheRs.18.10.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12236/12 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner against his order of transfer from Gram Panchayat Pathat Kala to Malpar in District Rewa has been disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation against his transfer expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned single judge only on the ground that the learned single judge while disposing of the petition with a direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, h...
Ku.Urmila Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 ku. urmila versus state W.P.No.17825/2012 18/10/2012: Shri Alok Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as ANM at Ram Payali, District Balaghat. Vide order dated 13.7.2012 she has been transferred to Community Health Centre to Public Health Centre, Umarwada. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences due to ailment and certain circumstances. Such 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 detailed representation, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance to law within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo with regard to working and posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. With the aforesaid this petition ...
Gorelal Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Writ Petition No.20642/2011 18.10.2012 Shri Sanjay K.Agarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate for the respondents. The dispute in this petition revolves around alleged illegal mining in various forest areas of Tahsil Uchehra and Nagod of District Satna. Several disputed questions of fact are likely to arise, hence this court proposes to appoint a High Power Committee comprising of responsible officers and other independent persons outside the Government such as retired Judges and any other suitable person that may be suggested. The Government Advocate may submit a proposal for constitution of such a Committee to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Smt. Rais Jadi Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Writ Petition No.8328/2012 18.10.2012 Shri M.Shafiqullah, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Heard. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in view of the observations that in the absence of any objection raised by the respondent no.5, the entire compensation was paid to the wife and daughter of Ulfat Ali. It is not pointed out on behalf of the petitioners as to how the finding of the learned Judge that Naseer is entitled to a share in ex-gratia in accordance with the law of succession is erroneous. Hence, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly rejected. (S.A.Bobde) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge HS Writ Petition No.15266/2012 18.10.2012 None for the petitioner. Let the matter be listed in next week. (S.A.Bobde) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge snb/- Writ Petition No.14827/2012 18.10.2012 Learned Government Advocate states that the reply has been filed on 11th October, 2012. Office is directed to trace it and place the same on record...
Smt. Vimla Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Writ Appeal No.1205/2012 (Smt. Vimla Singh ..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.18-10-2012 Heard Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner on the question of admission. Though the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner assailing the order passed by this court dated 21-9-2012 in W.P.No.15830/2012 (s) raising several grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing at length, submits that the liberty granted by the learned single Judge to the petitioner to approach the Collector may be clarified by stating that the Collector may consider the representation of the petitioner by taking into consideration the order dated 31-8-2012 passed by the S.D.O., Katangi modifying the petitioner's order of transfer and the appeal be disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, in view of the limited prayer made by the appellant, while the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.15830/2012 (s) dated 21-9-2012 is upheld, it is observed th...
D.P.Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
D.P.Choudhary versus State & Anr. W.P.No.17373/2012 18/10/2012 Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week. Considering the fact that the petitioner came to Niwari on transfer only on 29.8.2011, not his transfer within a short period of less than one year to Sidhi, prima-facie, seems to be not proper. In view of the above, respondents are directed to show cause as to why the transfer of the petitioner as ordered within such a short period be not quashed. Notice be made returnable by the week commencing from 26th of November, 2012. Till the next date, status-quo with regard to working and posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. Certified Copy today. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Arvind Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Arvind Kumar Khare versus State of MP and otheRs.18.10.2012. Shri Swapnil Ganguly for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 5.9.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Tikamgarh directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of `15,19,000/- or in the alternate threatening to take disciplinary action against him, petitioner has approached this Court. Petitioner was Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and a show-cause notice Annexure P/1 was issued to him on 29.7.2011, wherein it was indicated that certain irregularities have been committed in the Gram Panchayat in the matter of executing certain work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and, therefore, action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner and various other persons. Even though initially a notice for recovery of `15,19,000/- from the petitioner was issued, subsequently the amount was reduced to `10,0...
Protyush Chattarjee Vs. Super Auto Forge Private Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
M.C.C.No.1050/20118. 10.2012 Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.11794/2012, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing M.C.C.for restoration of revision petition, dismissed in default. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the M.C.C.is condoned. M.C.C.itself is heard on admission. It is contended that the defaults pointed out by the Registry were not cured on account of inadvertent mistake and since there was non-compliance of this order, subsequently the peremptory order was passed by this Court. However, since the defaults could not be removed on account of peremptory order passed by this Court on 13.07.2012, the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Such averments made in the application are again supported by an affidavit. Considering the aforesaid, the M.C.C.is allowed. Review Petition No.432/2012 is restored to...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »