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.
Dinesh Malviya Vs. Bhopal Sahkari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16792/2012 (Dinesh Malviya versus Bhopal Sahkari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit Bhopal and otheRs.10.10.2012 Heard Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders passed by the returning officer dated 21.09.2012 and 26.09.2012 whereby the area of Ward No.7 for the purpose of elections of representatives of the M.P.Dugdh Sangh, Bhopal has been changed and it has been reserved for the scheduled caste category. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previously the respondents/authorities had published the constitution of the ward No.7 and the voters list, which was suddenly changed by them by order dated 21.09.2012, as a result of which even though there are no voters belonging to the scheduled caste category in ward No.7, it has been reserved for scheduled caste category. It is stated that the petitioner being aggrieved by the same had filed objec...
Sumit Kumar Vs. Asharam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
M.C.C.No.328/2011 10.10.2012 Shri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Jitendra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.2817/2011, an application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a sole bread earner of his family. It is further submitted that the counsel for the applicant in the trial Court did not inform the applicant about the decision in the suit. The applicant came to knot about decree passed by the trial Court only after receipt of notice from the executing Court. Thereafter, the applicant could not approach the counsel for filing the appeal on account of ill health of his father. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant ought to have been more vigilant and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that the expression sufficient cause. used in S...
Arjun Kumar Vijaykar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
arjun kumar vijaykar versus state W.P.No.17110/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Development Extension Officer in Janpad Panchayat Amla, District Betul and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 he has been transferred from Amla to Janpad Panchayat, Harda. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of no administrative necessity being available or on the ground that petitioner has only completed two years and he is being transferred even before period of three years has been completed. The order of transfer indicates that in annual transfer exercise along with the petitioner more than 30 employees have been transferred and the grounds raised in this petition are not such on the basis of judicial review of an administrative order is permissible. Accordingly directing the competent authority to decide the representation ...
Ram Siya Kanojia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.18268/2011(s) Ram Siya Kanojia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5. ORDER (10.10.2012) The petitioner has come before this Court ventilating his grievance against the order dated 06.07.2010 Annexure P-4, by which after his retirement, verifying the pay of the petitioner, it has been held that the petitioner was paid the amount in excess to the amount due to him as wrong fixation was done. It is contended that the petitioner was not responsible for such excess payment of salary as neither the salary was revised by him in the revised pay scale not he made 2 any representation in that respect. If at the time of retirement such an objection was raised, the same was not to be accepted in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cas...
Smt. Gayatri Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 Writ Petition No.16875/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarification of the quer...
Awadh Kishore Vs. Brajbhooshan Prasad Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Second Appeal No.860/2011 10.10.2012 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that the suit lands as well as the land bearing KhaSr.No.689 were purchased from the income of the joint family. The joint family also owned ancestral house. The properties held by the joint family were never subjected to partition and were recorded in the name of deceased defendant-Brij Bushan. The land bearing KhaSr.No.689 was sold by the defendant-Brij Bushan during his lifetime and on the suit land bearing KhasRs.No.576/2 the plaintiff No.1 is in cultivating possession. However, the deceased defendant sold the same to defendants No.2 & 3 vide registered sale deed dated 29.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of de...
Dr.[Smt.] Varsha Sanghi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Dr. Smt. Varsha Sanghi versus State 1 W.P.No.15928/2006 (s) 10.12.2012: Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1 to 3. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor in Navyug College of Arts and Commerce, Jabalpur. The said college is receiving grant-in aid from the State Government and it is a case of the petitioner that her claim for grant of selection grade has not been considered even though she has completed the requisite period of service for grant of selection grade. Accordingly claiming benefit of selection grade after completing 8 years of service in accordance to the procedure contemplated and the provisions incorporated in the M.P.Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, this writ petition has been filed. Initially when the writ petition was filed, the State Government, the Commissioner of Higher Education and the Govern...
Meena Swayam Sahayata Samuh Jeetnagar, Vikaskhand Maihar Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.17204 / 2012 (Meena Swayam Sahayata Samooh, Jeetnagar ..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.10-10-2012 Heard Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 1-9-2012, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Maihar, District Satna, whereby the contract for supply of mid-day meal in the Education Guarantee School, Shwetanagar, Education Gurantee School, Harijan Basti, Jeetnagar and Primary and Secondary School, Jeetnagar with the petitioner is being cancelled by the respondent/authorities. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid contract is being cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or assigning any reason for the same. It is, however, observed that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner in the matter is to approach the Collector concerned i.e.Collector, Satna, for m...
Sunil Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
sunil pandey versus state W.P.No.17070/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Ashok K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant in Environmental Plannings & Co-ordination Organization (EPCO).Bhopal. Vide order dated 24.4.2012 petitioner was transferred from Bhopal to Rewa. He challenged the said transfer by approaching this Court in W.P.No.10711/2012 and it was the case of the petitioner the post on which the petitioner was working is not available at Rewa and therefore, he could not be transferred. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, this Court on 27.7.2012 directed respondents No.1 and 2 to re-examine the matter based on the complaint made by the petitioner and decide his representation by a speaking order. not when the representation is considered and decided as is evident from Annexure P/4 dated 27.8.2012, petitioner is again before this Court. A perusal of the order pass...
Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :6894. of 2010(S) Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu - V/s - State of MP and Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for Respondents 1 and 2. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, counsel for intervener Dr. A.N.Mittal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 10/10/2012 Seeking promotion on the post of Director, Health Services in the Directorate of Health, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and contending that petitioner has been found fit in a Departmental Promotion Committee held on 2.7.2007 and by misconstruing the provision for reservation, benefit of the recommendations made in the DPC held on 2.7.2007 is not granted, petitioner has file...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »