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.
Ram Lallu Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ram Lallu Bais versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Smt. Sudha Gautam for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer from Gram Panchayat Bhalya Tola, Tehsil Sarai, District Singrauli to Gram Panchayat Choura under Janpad Panchayat Waidhan, District Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that as per the MP Panchayat Service [Gram Panchayat Secretary, Recruitment and Conditions of Service].Rules, 2011 and Rule 6(7) thereof, the transfer policy has to be formulated by the Commissioner and on the basis of the transfer policy formulated by the Secretary of the Panchayat Department, petitioner cannot be transferred. The aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner has already been considered and rejected by Gwalior Bench of this Court, by a common order passed on 8.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.6615/2012 [Uttam Singh Lodhi versus State of MP and o...
Dhirendra Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Dhirendra Singh Baghel & Anr, versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17339 16. 10.2012: Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners are working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, they have been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioners have transferred contrary to transfer policy without proposal has been invited and without their being proposed they have been transferred. That apart, it is stated that petitioners have been transferred after the period prescribed for transfer in the transfer policy. The grounds raised by petitioner are merely breach of transfer policy. In this regard the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others versus S.L.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 35.and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary versus State of M.P.ILR, 2007,...
Ram Kripal Barman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
ram kripal vs., state W.P.No.17466/2012 16.10.2012 Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Shiksha Karmi and absorbed in the establishment of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that on certain complaints made respondent No.5 was suspended by respondent No.4 vide order dated 2.4.2011 Annexure P/1. Thereafter suspension has been revoked on 2.5.2011 vide Annexure P/2. However, again on 1.7.2011 vide Annexure P/3 respondent No.5 has again been suspended. This suspension is also revoked by respondent No.4 on 17.8.2011 vide Annexure P/4. However, as there are serious allegations against respondent No.5 it is stated that respondent No.6 has directed respondent No.5 to give charge of the school in question and it is stated that the District Education Officer, Katni has directed for handing over charge to the petitioner. Documents in support thereof ...
Sunil Kumar Singhai Vs. Bhagirath Arya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.15915/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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.12510/12, 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 the further proceeding in C.S.No.20-A/2011 pending in the court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Damoh is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Smt. Shashi Pandey Vs. Kailash Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.15914 o16. 10.2012 Shri R.K.Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-defendant has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 25.7.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the 11th Civil Judge, Class- II, Jabalpur in C.S.No.76-A/2008 whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for consequential amendment has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the papers placed on record, I have found that during the pendency of the suit the principle plaintiff -landlord, Vidhyadhar had passed away on which the respondents plaintiffs have come on record as his legal representatives and also filed a Will of the principal defendant dated 29.7.2009. On the strength of such Will the pleadings of the plaintiffs was amended by the plaintiffs, vide their application dated 11.11.2011. Subsequent to incorporation of such amendment in the plaint on behalf of the ...
M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Siya Ram Raghuwanshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 R.P.No.745/2012 R.P.NO.745/2012 16.10.2012 Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Vide this petition Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission seeks review of order dated 23.8.99 passed in W.P.No.1299/11 (s).The said writ petition was preferred by respondent, an Accountant (CST) in Zila Panchayat, Narsinghpur, being aggrieved by the action of the Commission in not calling him for interview for the post of Taxation Assistant in the Commercial Tax Department of Madhya Pradesh Government, despite his passing the written examination. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 23.8.12, whereby it was ordered- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed under a project known as Rajya Jal Avam Swachhata Mission and though his appointment was initially for a period of one year but he is very much continuing in service. The advertisement of Public Service Commission, provides age rela...
M.P. Ashok Hotel Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Writ Petition No.3768/12. 16.10.2012 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State-respondent no.1. Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3. Having heard on I.A.No.10768/12, petitioners rejoinder in the shape of application. The same is taken on record. I am apprised by the counsel present that Writ Petition No.693/05, involving the similar question as raised in this petition is also pending in this Court. In view of this, I deem fit to hear this petition after calling the record of aforesaid writ petition hence, Office is directed to place this matter along with Writ Petition No.693/05, in the week commencing 19.11.2012. The interim order passed earlier on dated 7.3.2012 is hereby continued till next hearing of this petition. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Ramesh Kumar Verma [Saket] Vs. Additional Collector, Rewa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.17551 / 2012 (Ramesh Kumar Verma (Saket) ..Vs..Additional Collector, Rewa & otheRs.16-10-2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is confining his relief only to the extent of a direction to the respondent No.1, Additional Collector, Rewa to consider and decide the revision filed by the petitioner in Case No.371/A-74/Revision/10-11 pending before him against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Mangawan, District Rewa, dated 27-4-2011 cancelling the B.P.L.status of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the aforesaid revision filed by the petition before the Additional Collector, Rewa shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance w...
Upendra Singh Chauhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Upendra Singh Chauhan versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17352 16. 10.2012: Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Considering the fact that representation filed by the petitioner with regard to his transfer from one Gram Panchayat to another is pending before the competent authority, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four seeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and till the representation is so decided, status- quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Kailash Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Kailash Kushwaha & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.17294 16. 10.2012: Shri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners are working as daily wages employee and claims regularization in service on the ground that they have completed more than 15 years of service. They were working regularly since 1998-1999 and are 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 examine case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to policies and circulars of the State Government and pass appropriate or...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »