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.
Smt.Rukma Bai Vs. Rakesh Mewada
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.15785/12 (I) 10.10.2012. Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner / judgment debtor has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 21.8.2012 (Ann. P.3) passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Sehore in Execution Case No.2-B/08-09 dismissing her application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC for releasing the attached property from the attachment of the concerning decree. In the couRs.of the argument on admission, in view of provision of Order 21 Rule 58 (4) of CPC in which against dismissal of such application remedy of appeal is provided on making some query from the petitioner's counsel instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appeal before the appropriate forum. Considering aforesaid prayer, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid. However, office is directed to return the certified copy of the impug...
indira Bhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.14505/2011 Indira Bhan Singh & Anot versus State of M.P.& ORS.10.10.2012 Shri Mrigendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are passing orders to shift all the students studying in the Govt. High School, Kochila, District Sidhi to the private school belonging to respondent no.9 Man Singh Higher Secondary School, Kochila with a view to favour the said respondent. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that in fact respondent no.9 School has been taken over and has been transferred to the administrative control of the Zila Panchayat, Sidhi and the respondent no.9 School including its administration are not under the Zila Panchayat, Sidhi and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed to favour the private institution is factually incorrect. It is stated by the...
Basant Kumar Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.16629/12 10.10.2012: Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State on advance notice. Inter alia contending that inspite of empanelment and selection for appointment on the post of Asstt. Grade-III in the select list prepared on 5/07/99, petitioner is not being appointed and the selection is not being given effect to, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that in the district in question for the purpose of filling up of certain backlog post, a recruitment process was conducted and based on the aforesaid process, the select list was published on 5/07/99 and petitioner's name appeared in the said select list. However, as nothing was done and when the selection was not given effect to, it is stated that petitioner approached this Court in the year 2002. Initially, he filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's ...
Nagwa Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.14415 o10. 10.12 Shri D.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on IA No.12089/12 an application for appropriate direction to ignore the default raised by the office. For the reasons stated in it, after perusing the concerning document, the same is allowed and the alleged default is hereby ignored. Also heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 3.5.12 Annex.P/11 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.1927-II/05 affirming the order dated 6.9.05 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar in Revenue Appeal No.165/A/6/ A/2001-02 whereby allowing such appeal the order dated 8.1.01 Annex.P/8 passed by the SDO, Lodi/ Gorihar, District Chhatarpur in Revenue Appeal No.134/Appeal/2000-2001 was set aside and the order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Gorihar in Revenue Case No.03/A-6A/99-2000 has been restored. It is noted that by aforesaid...
Sunder Lal Chadar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Sunder Lal Chadar versus State of MP and otheRs.10.10.2012. Shri Manot Chansoriya for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 06-10-2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.5, Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, enhancing the punishment awarded to the petitioner under para 270 of the M.P.Police Regulations and consequential orders passed on 24-05-2006 and 18-11-2006 by respondent Nos.4 & 3, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that for certain misconduct committed by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner and finally, vide order dated 27-09-2003 (Annexure P-6) reprimanded the petitioner and did not impose any further punishment. Thereafter, the same authority i.e. The Superintendent of Police exercised suo moto powers and vide impugned order, enhanced the punishment to stoppage of one increment with c...
Ku. Richa Choudaha Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1...W.P.No.14323 o10. 10.2012 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel alongwith the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Shri Kaurav produced four answer sheets of the petitioner including the subject Project Management Entrepreneurship.It is submitted by Shri Kaurav that prima facie there is some mistake in the answer sheets of valuation as one answer is not valued and he may be allowed short time to get the answer script revalued or re-totaled by the examiner and thereafter to file revised result of the subject. Prayer is allowed. At the request of Shri Kaurav, hearing of this matter is adjourned for 2.11.2012. On next date the remaining three answer scripts along with the revised result and answer script of the subject Project Management Entrepreneurship. be also produced before this Court, in a sealed cover. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the University. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj 2.....
Hemraj Gaygwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.13078 / 2012 (Hemraj Gaygwal..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.10-10-2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his missing wife. The State/respondent has filed a return and has stated that the police has registered a missing persons case and has referred the matter for further investigation to the Superintendent of Police (G.R.P.).Jabalpur by letter dated 3-10-2012 (Document No.3).It is stated that in spite of efforts the petitioner's wife could not be traced out while police authorities are still making all efforts to produce the wife of the petitioner and shall continue to do so and shall also ensure that the case registered by them reaches a logical conclusion. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent, the petition filed by the petitioner is dispo...
Lal Singh Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.16843/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Amit Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/0...
Dr. J.P. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Dr. J.P.Gupta versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17113 / 2012 (s) 10.10.2012: Shri J.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor (Physics) in Government Post Graduate College, Satna, District Satna. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Government College Sironj in District Vidisha. Challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground that petitioner is shown to be transferred on own cost, whereas petitioner has not made any request and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. It is further stated by the petitioner that under such circumstances various other employees were transferred and in the case of three employees their representations have been considered and the transfer order is cancelled, as is evident from Annexure P-6. It is further stated that persons working in the same Institute since 1991-1992 have not...
N.P. Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
N.P.Malviya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 16972 / 2012 10.10.2012: Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agricultural Development Officer and vide order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from Block Development Ashta, District Sehore to District Katni. Challenging order of transfer petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.11303/2012(s) and on 7.8.2012 a Bench of this Court found that the grievance made by petitioner with regard to his transfer is No. such which warrants interference by the Court. Accordingly after taking note of the legal principles as is laid down in various judgments referred to in the order Annexure P5 dated 7.8.2012 this Court found that no interfe...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »