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.
Ganesh Prasad Armo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Ganesh Prasad Armo versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Pondi, Janpad Panchayat Bichiya and by the impugned order-dated 8.8.2012, he has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Dudwa, Janpad Panchayat Bijadandi, in the same District Mandla. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground of personal inconvenience of the petitioner due to old age of his father and various other family probleMs.The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition for challenging the order of transfer are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. Certified copy as per ru...
Anil Kumar Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Anil Kumar Kori versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16742/2012 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 ...
Rajkumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16751/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5066/2007 (Brajesh Kumar Tiwari versus C.E.O.Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri and others).In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5066/2007. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Shri Ganesh Shiksha Samiti, (Kamala Simriti Mahavidyalaya Vs. the Nati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 M.C.C.No.966/20108. 10.2012 Shri Vikas Mishra, Advocate, appears on behalf of Shri J.K.Pillai, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer, for respondent no.3. Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, Advocate, for respondent no.4. This application is filed for restoration of Writ Appeal No.11669/2010 which was dismissed in default on 4.7.2012. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, we find that applicant has made out a case for res- toration of W.P.No.11669/2010. Accordingly this application is al- lowed. Office to restore the Writ Petition No.11669/2010 to its ori- ginal number and to list it before appropriate bench. M.C.C.is finally disposed of with no order as to cost. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge HS...
Manoj Singh Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 M.A. 2051/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA M.A. No.2051/2012 .........Appellant: Manot Singh, S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Occupation Private Service, R/o Villlage Shukla, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna, M.P. Versus .......Respondents:1. Rajendra Singh 2. Ravendra Singh 3. Narendra Singh 4. Brajendra Singh No.1 to 4 are S/o Late Kripal Singh and Occupation Agriculturist, Village Shukla, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna, M.P.5. Smt. Kamlesh Singh, W/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Occupation House Wife.6. Balendra Singh, S/o Rajendra Singh, Occupation Agriculturist.7. Vikram Singh, S/o Late Pradhuman Singh 8. Vanshraj Singh, S/o Late Pradhuman Singh 9. Jai Bahadur Singh, S/o Late Pradhuman Singh 10. Smt. Hansraju Singh, W/o Late Pradhuman Singh, Occupation House Wife.11. Kamlendra Singh, S/o Late Kripal Singh, Occupation Agriculturist. No.5 to 11 are R/o Village Shukla, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna, M.P.12. State of M....
Smt. Krishna Jat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16720/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Paresh Pareek, 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. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions m...
Alim Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9348/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Z.M.Shah, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 14/06/2012 in connection with Crime No.116/12 registered at P.S.Tila Jamalpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 506/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that it is a case of belated FIR of about 5 months. Prosecutrix Nazneen is more than 25 years of age. Trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of allegation made against the applicant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to...
Ramesh Kumar Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16539/20108. 10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, 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 mentioned ...
Paras Harinkhede Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Paras Harinkhede versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Rakesh Khare for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner with regard to grant of charge of Secretary, Gram Secretary is pending before Collector, Seoni respondent No.2, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Jagdish Prasad Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15698/20108. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, 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 mentione...
- ‹ Prev
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- Next ›
- Last »