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.
Pramod Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.17259/12 10/10/12 Shri Kamal Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a ' Panchayat Secretary' and has been transferred from one Panchayat to another. Inter alia contending that petitioner has been entrusted with some duty to prepare photo Electoral Voter List for the year 2012 and, therefore, as per the instructions issued by the Election Officer, he cannot be transferred, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.points out that for the present, no process of election is to be held and as the District Election Officer has permitted transfer in various other cases, there is no illegality in the same. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that petitioner is being transferred on administrative consideration and if the election duty entrusted to the petitioner cannot be performed because the petitioner is being tran...
Smt.Savitri Devangan Vs. Dr.Navneet Mohan Kothari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Savitri Devangan versus Navneet Mohan Kothari Con.C.No.603/2009 10/10/2012 Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the non- applicant. Inter-alia contending that an order passed on 5.11.2008 in W.P.No.12746/2008 has not been complied with, this application was filed in the year 2009 and the same is pending. It seems that the petitioner came to this Court with a grievance that one Shri Surendra Nath Shrivastava, who was Respondent No.3 in the original writ petition has made certain objection over the conservancy, as a result the petitioner is suffering and, therefore, he has filed a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.No.7556/2008 and records indicate that this writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2008 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under Section 307 (5) of the Municipal Corporation Act. It seems that the petitioner submitted an application under Section 307 (5) o...
Anthoney J.C. Disa Principal Secretary Vs. Laxmi Prasad Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
M.C.C.No.1088 of 2012. 10.10.2012. Shri Pradeep Gpta for the petitioner. Shri Alok Nair for respondent. This application is filed for extension of time period for compliance of the order dt.25.7.2012 in Contempt Case No.141/2012. It is submitted that because of non-availability of the record, order could not be complied with. However, a prayer is made for extension of further 3 months' time for compliance of the order. From perusal of the order dt.25.7.2012, we find that 30 days' time was allowed to the petitioner for deciding the appeal and already 3 months have elapsed. In view of the aforesaid,we allow further 30 days' time from today for compliance of the order dt.25.7.12. With the aforesaid direction, this M.C.C.Is finally disposed of with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Ramlal Patel Vs. Sanjay Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
-1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Misc.Appeal No.1766/2011 Ramlal Patel and another -Vs- Sanjay Patel and others & Misc. Appeal No.2260/2011 Ramlal Patel and another -Vs- Sanjay Patel and others Present : Honble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui Shri N.C.Beohar and Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocates for appellants. Shri R.P.Khare, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 6. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent No.7 and 8. ORDER RESERVED ON 20.09.12 ORDER PASSED ON 10.10.12 ORDER Since both the appeals arise out of common Order dated 25th March,2011 passed by 18th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as trial Court.) in Civil Suit No.2A/2011 and 8A/2011 deciding the application filed by the plaintiffs/appellants under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC, hence they are being decided by this common order.2. Learned trial Court found that looking to the averments of the parties undisputed facts were that -2- common ancestor was Bheem Patel (Kachhi) who was holding the disputed land, he was s...
Gyayendra Pandey Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Gyanendra Pandey versus Sanjay Tiwari Con.C.No.1660/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya with Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Inter-alia contending that a decree passed by the FiRs.Appellate Court in an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with, this application has been filed seeking execution of the decree in question. Office has raised an objection to the effect that when under law, the decree can be put to execution, the contempt application is not maintainable. The office objection is sustainable. When an order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction can be executed under the statutory provision, a contempt application is not maintainable. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case R.N.Dey and ORS.Vs Bhagyabati Pramanik and ORS.2000 (4) SCC 40.that for the purpose of execution of a decree or judgment rendered by the Civil Court, proceedings for contempt cannot be initiated and as the judgment or decree p...
O.P. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
R.P.No.783/2012 10.10.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by this Court in R.P.No.651/2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to typographical error in the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by this Court in R.P.No.651/2012 number of writ petition has been referred as W.P.No.9842/2012 (s) whereas the correct number of writ petition is W.P.No.9856/2012 (s).The aforesaid aspect has not been disputed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by this Court in R.P.No.651/2012 is modified and it is directed that number of writ petition referred to in the said order shall be read as W.P.No.9856/2012 (s) instead of W.P.No.9842/2012 (s).This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 31.8.2012 passed b...
Rakesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.17221/12 10/10/12 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Secretary' of the Gram Panchayat and has been transferred and in his place, respondent No.5 has been posted. Both petitioner and respondent No.5 had sought for cancellation of the transfer and the matter has to be decided by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sidhi. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on the petitioner and respondent No.5 filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed representation before the respondent No.3, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. Till the matter is not decided, status quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Smt.Yashoda Bai Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16845/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Vikash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioner therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by w...
Ramhit Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.3130/2010 10.10.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for State along with Shri R.K.Shukla, D.S.P.(C.I.D.) present. An explanation has been submitted by the State in respect of the change of investigating officer and also for constituting a team headed by Shri R.K.Shukla, D.S.P.(C.I.D.) Zonal Officer that earlier investigating officer was changed, because she was already investigating 5 other matteRs.not the entire investigation is going on in the supervision of R.K.Shukla, D.S.P.It is submitted by Shri Shukla that he has recorded statements in the investigation and prays further two months time to complete the investigation. In the interest of justice, prayer of Shri Shukla is allowed. He is allowed two months time to complete the investigation. It is made clear that Inspector General (C.I.D.) shall not change the Investigating Team till completion of the investigation, without prior permission of this Court. Be listed for hearing on 10.1...
Hemraj Meshram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Tribal Welfare Departm ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15706/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Vinayak Prasad Shah, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions su...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »