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.
Reva B.Ed College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 M.C.C.No.1189/20108. 10.2012 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer, for respondent no.3. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affi- davit and looking to the fact that Director of the applicant college, Mohanlal Yadav, suffered heart disease and because of this he could not engage another counsel and the case was dismissed in default on 9.5.2011, we find it appropriate to allow the application and restore the Writ Petition No.18869/2010 to its original number. Office to restore the aforesaid writ petition and to place it be- fore the appropriate bench. M.C.C.is finally disposed of with no order as to cost. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge HS...
Ram Krishna Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Ram Krishna Shrivastava versus The State of M.P.& ORS.1 M.C.C.No.1063 8. 10.2012: Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. By this application petitioner is seeking correction of cause- title of a decided writ petition. The same requires amendment of the writ petition and as writ petition is already decided, amendment of the cause-title in the manner done cannot be permitted. Petitioner should file a separate writ petition indicating the correct facts and, therefore, finding this petition to be unsustainable, the application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a separate petition seeking the aforesaid benefit. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
R.K.Bhatia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
R.K.Bhatia versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16750/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Even though, the petitioner is transferred from one Autonomous Institute to another and this Court in various cases have stayed such ordeRs.during the couRs.of hearing of the petition on the last date, Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.107/2011 (Anil Kumar Singhai versus State of M.P.and Ors.) to contend that challenge to the transfer of an employee from one Autonomous Engineering College to another has been rejected by a bench and similar petitions dismissed. However, Shri Paritosh Gupta has invited my attention to an order dated 18.5.2012 passed in W.A.No.432/2012, whereby a Division Bench of this Court has stayed the order passed by the learned Single Bench in the c...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Kumar Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
R.P.No.773/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioneRs.This review petition is filed against an order dated 18.07.2012 passed by this Court by which a writ appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 to 3 was allowed and the proceedings against them under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act were declared as abated and they were held to continue to be owner of the land. This order has been sought to be reviewed on following grounds:- (1) That the petitioners herein had already taken possession of the land so the land was vested with the State and there was no question of declaring the proceedings as abated. (2) That when the possession was already taken by petitioners then there was no question of return of the possession. (3) That even there was some defect in service of the notice under section 10(5) of the Act, then it by itself could not have been a ground to treat the proceedings as null and void. (4) It was submitted that in view of law laid dow...
Karim Ullah Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.16494/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Sayed Zahiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, 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 mention...
Naresh Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Naresh Kumar Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri A.K.Rawat for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a constable in Panna District and has been transferred to District Sagar vide order-dated 14.7.2012. Petitioner has joined on the transferred place, but representation filed by the petitioner for cancellation/modification of the order of transfer is still pending and, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation. In that view of the matter, for the present without entering into the merits of the matter, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Subelal Katre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15746/20108. 10.2012 Shri Ram Naresh Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.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 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 m...
Smt. Shalini JaIn Vs. Managing Director / General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.15408/12. 8.10.2012 Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adtiya Adhikari, learned Standing counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3. Respondents counsel seeks for and is granted the period of three weeks to file the return in the matter. Meanwhile, on payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission of this petition as well as of interim relief, returnable within three weeks be issued to the respondent no.4 failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition it is directed that any steps which are taken by the respondents no.1 to 3 to allot the dealership of impugned KSK outlet, shall be subjected to any interim or final order of this petition. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Maqsood Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Maqsood Khan versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16997/2012 08/10/2012 Shri V.P.Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General on advance notice for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 on advance notice. Petitioner is a Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Jabalpur and by the impugned order dated 29.9.2012, he has been transferred from Jabalpur to Narsinghpur. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that because the petitioner has vigorously carried out certain encroachment drive and has removed certain encroachment and, therefore, the petitioner is being transferred malafidely and in support thereof, petitioner has filed the newspaper reports of 27th of September, 2012 to contend that because the encroachment drive was vigorously carried out by the petitioner, the petitioner is being transferred. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the State on advance not...
Anoop Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16712/2012 08.10.2012 Shri A.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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 ...