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.
Balluram Raikwar Vs. Shri Manish Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Balluram Raikwar versus Manish Shrivastava & Anr. Con.C.No.95/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the non-applicants. Keeping in view the order passed by the non-applicants as contained in Annexure-R2, for the present, without proceeding further in the matter, non-applicants are directed to ensure that the actual monitory benefit accruing to the applicant by virtue of this order is paid to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the compliance is not reported, applicant is granted liberty to file an application seeking restoration of these proceedings. With the aforesaid, application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ram Lal Barholia Vs. Shri Rajan Kotoch
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Ram Lal Barholia versus Shri Rajan Katoch & Anr. Conc. No.1600 10. 10.2012: Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for respondents. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 4.12.2009 in W.P.No.7227/2009(s) have not been complied with and similar benefit, as has been granted to one Shri Yograj Singh, has not been granted this application has been filed. Petitioner was working in the Police Department and claiming promotion on the post of Reserve Inspector with effect from 24.4.1981. He also claims the benefit for consideration of his case with retrospective promotion on the post of D.S.P.as has been granted to one Shri Yograj Singh, who has filed W.P.No.23702/2003 and as certain benefit of promotion have been granted to Shri Yograj Singh he also claims similar benefit. After hearing all concerned W.P.No.7227/2009(s) was disposed of by this Court on 4.12.2009 and the order dated 16.4.2009 rejecting the represen...
Ramnaresh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Ramnaresh Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 17269 / 2012 10.10.2012: Shri Rajneesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and pointing out irregularity in the selection with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and the rules framed under section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs. of statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take...
Nathuram Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.235/1997 Nathuram VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.K.Samaiya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 10th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.1.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special case No.17/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred as the 'Special Act' ) and sentenced for 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month's addit...
Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16912/2012 10.10.2012 Shri M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition and interim relief to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable within six weeks. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of his superannuation, entire claims of petitioner were settled and no due certificate was issued, therefore, there was no occasion to initiate recovery proceedings vide impugned memo dated 22.8.2012. Considering the aforesaid, no coercive steps be taken pursuance to the impugned memo dated 22.8.2012 against the petitioner, till the next consideration of this interim prayer. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Roshan Aara Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15717/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, 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 ...
Madan Lal Vs. Narayan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15663 o10. 10.2012 Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt Adv for respondent no.4, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2012 (Ann. P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class- I, Panna in C.S.No.124-A/96 dismissing their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to carry out the measurement of the disputed boundaries. Initially after taking me through the papers placed on record, petitioner's counsel has argued the case at length for admission and allowing this petition. On asking the petitioner's counsel how the petitioner could be permitted to use the process of the Court as an agency for collecting the evidence for him by allowing the impugned application, on which petitioner's counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this ...
Dinkar Masulkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16823/20110. 10.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the order impugned dated 25th September, 2012, an executed order of posting on promotion is being modified. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 10.07.2012 and was posted at Bhopal in the office of Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, where he has taken over the charge on 28.08.2012. The respondent No.4 was posted at Gwalior and he too has carried out the order of posting on promotion. However, vide impugned order dated 25th September, 2012, State has modified the said order. Considering the aforesaid, issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Till the next consideration of the interim prayer, the petitioner be allowed to continue on his post in the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Health...
Sugri Prasad Kushwaha Vs. Vice Chancellor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15758/2012 10.10.2012 Ms.Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that they are made to work for more than eight hours than the duty hours prescribed for a Watchman. The petitioners have made various representations, but the same are not being looked into, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents would look into the representations of petitioners and will decide the same within a time bound, if liberty is granted. Considering the aforesaid, let the representations of petitioners be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, it is found that the petitioners were made to work for more than eight hours in terms of the resolution and the order dated 15.1.2009 of the Univ...
Pt. Arjun Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16758/2012 (Pt. Arjun Dubey versus State of MP and otheRs.10.10.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents/police authorities on the complaint filed by him. In the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur is directed to look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute anybody but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and if action has not been taken in accordance with law, issue appropriate direction do to so and ensure that the faith of the public in the police administration is strengthened and affirmed. To enable the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to do so, a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »