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.
Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Writ Petition No.16059/12 16.10.2012 Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the demand notice dated 26.8.2012 (Annexure-P-6) published in daily news paper Dainik Bhaskar about attachment and sale of the petitioners house. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents-Bank to supply the copy of the statement of loan account to the petitioner is also made. In addition to it, one more prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents Bank to grant them reasonable time of two years for making the repayment of entire loan amount is also made. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record has made his limited prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents authorities to consider and decide his pending representation Annexure-P-7 on some early date with some time bound sche...
Anurag Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Anurag Mishra versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17351 16. 10.2012: Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as L.D.C.in Government Girls College Katni. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 29.9.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Government College Harrai, District Chhindwara. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that the transfer policy is being violated. In Chhindwara there is not vacant post of L.D.C.and, therefore, petitioner cannot be transferred. Finally the third ground raised is that petitioner's wife is also working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II in Katni and, therefore, if transfer is effected the same would adversely affect the family set-up of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that merely because the transfer policy is violated, interference ...
Harish Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Harish Kumar Chaturvedi versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri S.K.Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Sinduri, Block Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Sinduri to Government Primary School Bodri. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as...
Smt Leela MakIn Vs. the Collector Distt Rewa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.1427/2008 (Smt. Leela Makin and another versus The Collector, Rewa and otheRs.16.10.2012 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel with Ms.Namrata Kesharwani, counsel for the respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at length submits that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the competent court for mitigation of their grievance in accordance with law. He however, submits that the interim order passed by this court be continued for a period of 15 days to enable them to do so. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding continuance of the interim relief. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is allowed. The petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petiti...
Mahesh Gunjele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Mahesh Gunjele versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17527 16. 10.2012: Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petiti...
Aruna Devi Bajaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.15920 o16. 10.2012 Shri A. Dharmadhikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide and pass final order on his application filed for grant of Mining Lease dated 8.9.1994, (P-4) expeditiously. After arguing the case for some time for admission in response of some query of the court, the petitioner's counsel has prayed to dispose of this petition with appropriate direction to the respondents authorities to consider and adjudicate his representation, (Ann. P-16) dated 1.9.09 filed for early disposal of the aforesaid Annexure P-4, expeditiously within some time bound schedule. The State's counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's counsel. I...
Ku. Meenakshi Chincholkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.16938/12 16/10/12 Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Supervisor' in the Woman and Child Development Department and has been transferred from Jabalpur to Seoni. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is an unmarried lady and pointing out various personal difficulties in carrying out the order of transfer, petitioner has approached this Court. On the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner, judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. The grounds raised by the petitioner are to be considered and appreciated by the competent authority of the department. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner ...
Mohd. Azhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Criminal Appeal No.290/2010 16.10.2012 Shri Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on IA No.20554/12, appellant's repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 392 r/w Section 397, 506- II of IPC for RI seven years with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI one year with fine of Rs.500/- respectively under such Sections. His earlier applications in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn, vide orders dated 12.5.2010 and 25.4.2011. Accordingly no such application has been considered on merits. Having heard, perused the record taking into consideration the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution alongwith the period of 136 days suffered by the appellant in judicial custody during the trial, so also the period of two years and nine months suffered by the appellant since the date of the impugned judgment, i.e.6.1.2010 till today, witho...
Vijay Kumar Jaroliya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Vijay Kumar Jaroliya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17374 16. 10.2012: Smt. Gulab K Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as a daily wages employee and claim regularization in service on the ground that he has completed more than 15 years of service. He is working regularly since 1984 and is entitled to regularization in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC, 1, and the policies formulated by the State Government on 16/05/2007 and further on 06/09/08, claiming regularization, petitioner have filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of principle laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra).the orders passed by this C...
Smt.Abhilasha Bai Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P No.12546/2012 (Smt. Abhilasha Bai Prajapati and another versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012 Heard Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by a show cause notice dated 26.05.2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pawai, District Panna under section 92 (1)(2)(3) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ( for short the Act.).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notice is bad and illegal as well as contrary to the provisions of law as it directs the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.49,533/- and thereafter file a reply which is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. From a perusal of the provisions of law as well as the show cause notice it is apparent that the authority has infact issued a show cause notice and the terms regar...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »