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.
Lokendra Singh Vs. Smt. Shreebai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.15932/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagad, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisite of registered post within a week, the notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.12528/12, an application for grant of stay, returnable within six weeks be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure, till next hearing of this petition, the further proceedings in U/R Civil Suit (Lokendra versus Shribai and otheRs.pending in the court of Civil Judge Class-I, Hatta, District Damoh is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
R.K. Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.17606/12 16/10/12 Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is an employee working in the Co-operative Society governed by the provisions of M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the dispute raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is a service dispute pertaining to an employee of the Co-operative Society and, therefore, petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal under Section 55 of the Act before the competent statutory authority. The statute contemplates of filing an appeal, Second Appeal and Revision and the M.P.State Co-operative Tribunal is the ultimate statutory authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner. As under the statute itself, petitioner has an alternate efficacious statutory remedy available, I see no reason to interfere into the matter only on the grounds of malafides raised in this writ petition. The grounds of malafides are to be considered and decided by the competent statutory authority. Accordingly, finding efficaci...
Govind Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Govind Prajapati versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17380 16. 10.2012: Shri M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same district. Initially petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, this Court did not find any ground to interfere into the matter and disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. It is not stated that without deciding representation impugned order has been passed on 22.9.2012 transferring petitioner to another place by cancelling the earlier order of transfer. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner is to retire within 1 year and 9 months and therefore, his transfer not is unsustainable. This ground have already been considered by this Court and on such consi...
Malkhan Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Malkan Ahirwar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17409 16. 10.2012: Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Kulguwan, Sankul Kendra Government Higher Secondary School Hata, District Tikamgar and vide order dated 14.7.2012 passed by District Education Officer petitioner has been transferred to Primary School Gopalpura Badagaon, District Tikamgarh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that if transfer is given effect to, student-teacher ratio would disturbe and, therefore, transfer is unsustainable. That apart, it is stated that on 3.10.2012, Principal of Sankul has recommended for cancellation of order of transfer, accordingly on this ground prayer made is that the transfer be quashed. Grounds raised by petitioner, as indicated hereinabove, are not such on the basis of which j...
Ram Khilawan Vishwakarma Vs. V.N. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ram Khilawan Vishwakarma versus V.N.Singh & ORS.Con.C.No.1631/2012 16/10/2012 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter-alia contending that an order passed on 6.8.2012 in W.P.No.12491/2012 has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.7.2012 by the Municipal Council under Sections 223/187 (8) and 307 of the M.P.Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961. After making certain submissions, it is seen from the order passed on 6.8.2012 that the learned counsel sought opportunity to file reply to the impugned notice and he prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the same. In view of the above, without entering into the controveRs.on merit, the writ petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to proceed further with the notice after taking note of the reply filed by the petitioner. not respondents have passed an order for removal of certain encroachment and,...
Naga Prahlad Das(D)mahant Govind Das Vs. Ramnaresh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
S.A.No.1789 o16. 10.2012 None for the appellant. Shri J. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent no.2. In view of listing the matter IA No.5289/12, an application for urgent hearing filed on behalf of respondent no.1 does not require any further consideration, hence the same is disposed of. Having perused the IA No.3917/11 and IA No.5288/12, applications filed on behalf of respondent No.1 for appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to pay him sum of compensation and for modification of the order dated 25.3.2011 respectively, I am of the considered view that either of the applications does not relate to the interim order dated 25.3.2011 as such by this applications the respondent No.1 has made some prayer which could be considered very well by the Regular Bench having the Roster of Second Appeal, hence office is directed to list this matter before the appropriate bench for consideration of aforesaid both the IAs after a...
B.C.Biyani Project Pvt. Limited Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, M.P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.10389 / 2012 (B.C.Biyani Project, PVT.Ltd., Bhusawal ..Vs..The Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Rural Road Development Agency, Bhopal and another) 16-10-2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-2012 passed by the respondent No.1, the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Rural Road Development Agency, Bhopal whereby liquidating the damages amounting to 10% of the value of the contract which comes to Rs.73,38,035/- have been imposed upon the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has not completed the work awarded to the petitioner by contract dated 12-10-2006 for construction and upgradation of rural roads under package No.3621 in district Seoni. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have already forfeited Rs.33 lacs which were deposited with the respond...
Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri Y.M.Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Deodutt Brahman Died Th:lr's Ramcharan Vs. Vinod Kumar Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 M.C.C.No.1072 o16. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, counsel for the applicants. Heard. This petition is preferred for restoration of W.P No.12321/06 which has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 22.8.12 directing to cure the default within the prescribed period. 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 but subject to curing the default within seven working days from today. If the alleged default is not cured within the prescribed period then the petitioner shall not be entitled to get benefit of this order. The petition is allowed as indicated above. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Smt. Aashiya Sultan Vs. Mohd. Israr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Writ Petition No.16025/12 16.10.2012 Ms.Jaya Laxmi Ayyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. She is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/non-applicant no.2/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by Vth Civil Judge Class- II in MJ.No.10/11 whereby, in the proceedings filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 (respondent no.1 to4) under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without deciding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act first, the trial Court has directed to consider such application as well as the application under Order 9 Rule 13 simultaneously, after recording the evidence. After taking me through the papers placed along with the impugned order. By referring the earlier decided case of this Court in the matter of V.K.Verma versus Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Committee, Betul reported in 2008(2) MPLJ 531 pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »