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.
Manoj Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.3933 / 2012 (Premlata Uike ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.01-10-2012 Heard Shri Nitin Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23-11-2011 passed in C.S.No.129-A/2009 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class II, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has raised the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below as well as maintainability but the same has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 23-11-2011 without taking into consideration the issue raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and perversity and deserves to be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at len...
Shakuntala Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15637/20108. 10.2012 Shri Munendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner is the widow of the Teacher who was working in the School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and has died. Claim is made by the petitioner for grant of benefit to which her husband was entitled to in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& others [W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) decided on 26.1.2007].Stating that the husband of the petitioner was 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 husband of the petitioner would also be entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this ...
Rajkumar Awasthi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.16738/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Koushlesh, 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 mentioned in t...
D.S.Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
D.S.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Gopal Singh for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Principal Grade II, in ITI, Rewa. Vide order-dated 17.9.2012, petitioner has been transferred from Rewa to ITI, Umaria. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of transfer Annexure P/2 is an order amending an earlier order of transfer dated 13.7.2012, by which certain persons whose name appear at Serial Nos.5, 7 and 15 of the order-dated 13.7.2012 are being amended, fresh orders of transfer issued. Interalia contending that in the original order of transfer Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012, petitioner was not proposed to be transferred and not when the transfer is being affected, petitioner is being transferred, he seeks interference into the matter and in support thereof submits that some error has been committed in transferring him. That apart, pointing out breach of transfer policy and conte...
Ramji Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15666/20108. 10.2012 Shri Sachin Sisodiya, 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 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 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 mentioned in ...
Shiv Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
shiv kumar pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.R.P.No.789/2012 8.10.2012: Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer in Block Raipur Karchulian, District Rewa. Prior to filing of W.P.No.15382/2012 petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.11913/2012 and a Bench of this Court on 9.8.2012 found that in view of certain Supreme Court judgment, the impugned order of transfer cannot be interfered with and disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. It seems that when the representation was not considered petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.15382/2012 and this Court refused to interfere in the matter. However, in W.P.No.15382/2012 in is alleged by the petitioner that inadvertently it has been indicated in the order dated 17.9.2012 that the representation has been rejected. I...
Laxminarayan Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3283/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.567/12, registered at police station Kotwali, District Raisen for the offence punishable under section 3/ 7 of the Essential Commodity Act read with sections 7 & 4 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this applicant was the license holder for selling the fertilizer till the year 2010 and he applied for renewal of the aforesaid license but due to some hurdle he could not get renew the same. He is ready to co-operate in further investigation. Applicant is reputed person of the society and there is no possibility of his absconding. In the event of a...
Raj Dulari Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
raj dulari patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16947 / 2012 (s) 8.10.2012: Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a ANM, Raisalpura in Primary Sub Health Centre under Primary Health Centre Dolaria and by the impugned order dated 20.9.2012 petitioner has been transferred to another Primary Health Centre in the same District Hoshangabad. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that earlier a show cause notice Annexure P/5 was issued to the petitioner pointing out certain lapses on the part of petitioner in not performing her duties in a particular area. It is submitted by the petitioner that the area namely Village Tararoda does not fall within the working area of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner submitted an explanation and pointed out that petitioner has not committed any error. It is stated that not only to harass the petition...
Balmukund Ahirwar Vs. the State Information Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.P.No.14106/2012 Balmukund Ahirwar versus The State Information Commissioner & ORS.08.10.2012 Heard Shri Subodh Kathar learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the concerned respondent on the application filed by the petitioner under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed an appeal before the higher authorities but the same has not been decided till date and, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the documents, filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition, it is apparent that while the petitioner has filed an application before the respondent no.4 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saikheda, however, the list of documents filed by the petitioner which is at page-12 indicates that it has been filed before the C...
The General Manager Vs. Smt. Nutan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.A.No.248/2012 08.10.2012 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Wajid Hyder, Advocate for the respondents. They are heard on I.A.No.898/2012 which is an application to condone the delay. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that earlier the probate application which was submitted by the respondents was dismissed by Probate Court against which an appeal was preferred by the respondents in this Court which was registered as M.A.No.147/2005 (Smt. Nutan Singh and others versus General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Katni and otheRs.and the same was allowed on 16.2.2010. However, in the said order nothing has been said whether the respondents are also entitled for the service benefits. Learned counsel further submits that this Court directed the Probate Court to grant probate certificate under seal of his Court in the form set- forth in Schedule VI of the Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, the probate certificate has been issued on 27.10.2010. It has also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- Next ›
- Last »