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.
Sunil Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Sunil Kumar Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.10.10.2012. Shri Arun Pandey for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 16.11.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division remanding the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration and for certain verification with regard to an experience certificate produced by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a Post Graduate having obtained a Degree in MA in English and B.Ed. Petitioner sought appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I, on the basis of eligibility test conducted by the Professional Examination Board and the result of the petitioner Annexure P/1. It was also the case of the petitioner that for having worked for three yeaRs.petitioner is entitled for 15 marks, the select list was issued and the 15 marks for experience was not granted to the petitioner. Respondent Nos.7 ...
Sudhir Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.17174/12 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/-...
Subhash Vs. Western Coal Field Ltd. Coal Estate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16705/20110. 10.2012 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is intimated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the default has been removed by furnishing a copy to learned Counsel for the respondents. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that he has received the copy of the petition today. Since the matter relates to date of birth, issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents. As notice has already been accepted by Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel, one more set of the writ petition be made available to learned Counsel for the respondents, who will seek instructions and will file response within four weeks. List in the week commencing 3rd December, 2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Vivek Kumar Tiwari Vs. Shri S.N.Rupla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Vivek Kumar Tiwari versus S.N.Gupta & Anr. Con.C.No.1665/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. In compliance to the directions issued by this Court on 16.7.2012 in W.P.No.10001/2012, the Collector of the district has passed a detailed order Annexure-C3 dated 3.9.2012. It seems that the grievance of the applicant is that the Collector has not considered the matter properly and, therefore, he is before this Court. In the writ petition, there was no direction to the Collector for taking a decision in a particular manner. The Collector has looked into the matter and he having passed the order, not the tenability of the order and the justification of the reasons given therein cannot be an action for contempt. If the applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the claim of the applicant is rejected, it gives a fresh cause to the applicant to challenge the order in accordance with law. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I see no reason to initia...
Harihar Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.5530/2011 10.10.2012 Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. It is seen that because of some mistake in mentioning the case number, the reply in another writ petition which is not related to the present writ petition has been placed on record reflecting the counsel for the respondent in the said case as the counsel for respondent in the present petition. Office to look into this, remove the reply filed in the case of M/s Raymond LTD.versus M.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission from the record of this writ petition. The notice issued to the respondent No.5 by registered A.D.has not yet been received back. The service report is awaited. Learned Government Advocate to seek instructions from respondents No.1 to 4 and to file the return within three weeks. List immediately after three weeks, awaiting service of notice on respondent No.5. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Smt. Rachna Garg Vs. the Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15469 o10. 10.12 Shri R.N.Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the compilation of the evaluation statement of the performance of candidates for dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Annex.P/1) whereby on evaluation the name of the petitioner was shown at No.2 while respondent No.3 was shown to be at No.1. Having heard the counsel, without expressing any opinion on merits of this petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider and decide the pending representation Annex.P/4 of the petitioner by speaking order within 45 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order along with the copy of petition with annexures in the office of the authorities of respondents No.1 and 2. Such authority is further direction to intimate such decision to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to submit t...
Guru Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.16806/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 mentio...
Kaleem Munshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15494/2012 (Kaleem Munshi versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 10.10.2012 Shri S.K.Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The corpus of Sahana @ Sanot has been produced before this court. She states that she is living separately from the petitioner on her own and she has not been detained or forcibly kept under detention by the respondent Nos.4 to 8. She states that she has infact been harassed and threatened by the petitioner, who is her brother, and has also been deprived of her right to property and other benefits and is constantly threatening her. She states that she does not want to go with her brother and is happily living and staying separately in a rented house and she specifically submitted that she has neither been threatened not detained by the respondent Nos.4 to 8 and has denied the allegations made by the petitioner. In the light of the statement made by Sahana @ Sanoo, who has appeared in person before t...
Loknath Gautam Vs. M/S Dubey Construction Company Partnership Firm
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Civil Revision No.311/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Sidharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.10878/2012, an application for stay. On payment of process fees by registered post with A.D.within a week, issue notice on merit as well as aforesaid I.A.to the respondents. Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the agreement dated 15.6.2005 on which the suit is founded, requires registration u/s.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid document creates right in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court reported in Capt. (not Major) Ashok Kshyap versus MRS.Sudha Vasisht and another , AIR 198.SC 841. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and facts and circumstances of the case, further proceedings ...
Vijay Singh Chauhan Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17003/20110. 10.2012 Shri Neeraj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondents, on advance copy. The only claim made by the petitioner is that the application submitted by him to join back the duties after permitting him to withdraw his voluntary retirement was not considered by the respondents only because of adherence to the scheme of voluntary retirement made by them wherein it was provided that option to retire voluntarily once exercised, would not be permitted to be withdrawn. It is contended that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Pandey versus General Manager, MPSRTC and another, W.A.No.952/2006 specifically lay-down that such an approach of the respondents was not justified. It is contended that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice contends that the aspect of limitation is required ...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »