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.
Gopal Krishna Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
gopal krishna shrivastava versus state W.P.No.17725/2012 17-10-2012 Petitioner in person. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week. Petitioner has filed this application challenging his transfer vide order dated 8.10.2012 from Jabalpur to Gwalior. Having heard the petitioner prima facie it seems that action is taken in view of the financial condition of the society. If the petitioner does not want to go, respondents are directed not to compel the petitioner to proceed on transfer. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in case they feel that work is not available at Jabalpur. Petitioner has a option either to go on transfer and work else respondents are granted liberty to take action even for dispensing his service in case they require, in accordance to law. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. c.c.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Suryakant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
suryakant tiwari versus state W.P.No.17595/2012 17-10-2012 Petitioner in person. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week. Petitioner has filed this application challenging his transfer vide order dated 5.10.2012 from Jabalpur to Bhopal. Having heard the petitioner prima facie it seems that action is taken in view of the financial condition of the society. If the petitioner does not want to go, respondents are directed not to compel the petitioner to proceed on transfer. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in case they feel that work is not available at Jabalpur. Petitioner has a option either to go on transfer and work else respondents are granted liberty to take action even for dispensing his service in case they require, in accordance to law. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. c.c.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Raza Traders Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P.No.17465/2012 Raza Traders versus State of M.P.& Ors 16.10.2012 Shri Vivek Maurya learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A No.13787/2012 for amendment in the petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Necessary amendment be carried out within seven days. Also heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the advertisement dated 3.10.2012 issued by the respondent no.3 Sub Divisional Officer, Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, proposing to grant rights to dismantle and remove 30 temporary construction constructed on Government land. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities had previously issued a notice inviting tender, pursuant to which the petitioner had applied and his bid of Rs.7.33 lakhs was the highest. It is submitted that though this fact was confirmed on opening of the bid on 11.9.2012 and pursuant thereto the petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs...
Rajnish Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Rajnish Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri A.S.Jha, Senior Advocate, with Shri Prabhakar Singh for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Karmi in Village Panchayat Gondkala, District Rewa and vide order-dated 29.9.2012 Annexure P/1, passed by respondent No.3, petitioner has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Mahuli in the same District. During the couRs.of hearing of the writ petition, the only ground canvassed was that the petitioner is being transferred to give some benefit to respondent No.4 and the transfer is not on any administrative consideration. Except for contending that the transfer is to grant accommodation to respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner, nothing is pointed out as to how and on what basis the transfer is illegal. Even though respondent No.7 a political person, is implicated as a party and certain grounds are raised to contend that the transfer ...
Prof. Suresh Acharya Vs. Shri Basant Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Suresh Acharya versus Bansant Pratap Singh & ORS.Con.C.No.16/2012 16/10/2012 Dr. R.B.Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, learned counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 & 2. Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 Professor J.P.N.Pandey. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that in compliance to the directions issued on 21.6.2011 in W.P.(s) No.11529/2004, the competent authority of the State Government has sanctioned pension payable to the petitioner and the papers were forwarded to the Principal, Government Girls College, Sagar. The said Principal has also forwarded the matter after complying with the provisions to the District Treasury Officer, Sagar. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Principal, Government Girls College Sagar has not complied with the entire direction but has only complied with the part order. Be it as it may be, the matter is before the District Treasury Officer and, therefore, the Distr...
Phoolchand Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Phoolchand Ahirwar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17332 16. 10.2012: Shri Anil Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as a Constable in District Tikamgar and by the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 he has been transferred to District Damoh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to certain ailment of his wife and that of his son. Grounds raised by the petitioner are personal inconveniences of petitioner which prohibits him from carrying out order of transfer and on such consideration as judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible, I am not inclined to interfere into the order of transfer. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of departmental remedy available the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Protyush Chatterjee Vs. Vivek Enterprise
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Protyush Chatterjee versus Vivek Enterprise A.C.No.107/2011 16/10/2012 Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Notices have been issued to the respondents and the matter is pending since 16.3.2011. Inspite of granting time on various occasions during the last one year, respondent has not filed any reply and when the case is listed today, even on the second round, none is appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the matter is decided on the basis of the material available on record. An agreement entered into between the parties vide Annexure-A1 with regard to certain supply of items to be made in connection with activities of the non-applicant with the establishment of Vehicle Factory Jabalpur. In the matter of supply of the iteMs.as certain disputes have risen, this application has been filed. On going through the material available on record, it is clear that the disputes have rise...
Rajendra Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Rajendra Singh Yadav versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri Rajendra Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as MPW in Community Health Center Badagawn, District Tikamgarh and vide order-dated 13.7.2012, he has been transferred to the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Damoh. Interalia contending that in the order of transfer no administrative reason is mentioned and the transfer is not warranted, petitioner seeks interference into the matter by pointing out various personal difficulties due to education of his children and various other grounds, personal in nature. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rul...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Devi Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 M.C.C.No.1118 o16. 10.2012 Shri A.L.Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastav, counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 Heard. This petition is preferred for restoration of W.P No.13433/06 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.3.2012. I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that in the aforesaid dismissal of the petition, respondents No.1 to 3 were not represented in the writ petition. Having perused the petition, for the reasons stated in it also Keeping in view the principle that litigant should not suffer because of mistake of the counsel, considering the aforesaid cause as sufficient, by allowing this petition,the aforesaid writ petition is restored to its original number with a direction to list the same in the week commencing 5.11.12 for further ordeRs.The petition is allowed as indicated above. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Shankar Patel Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2309 OF 199.Shanker Patel. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.589 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Shankar. Criminal Appeal No.2309/1996 Shri Masood Ali, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Criminal Appeal No.589/1997 Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State Shri Masood Ali, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 16th day of October, 2012) This judgment passed by me shall govern the disposal of above mentioned Criminal Appeals, since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment.2. Criminal Appeal No.2309/96 is preferred by the appellant Shanker Patel being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 30/11/1996 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST ...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »