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.
Rajendra Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Rajendra Sharma & Anr. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.9114/2012 09/10/2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners were candidates, who had appeared in the test conducted for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. Grievance of the petitioner is that for the degree of D.Ed. held by the petitioneRs.they are entitled to 20 marks in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions) of Contract Rules, 2005 and as the aforesaid marks are not granted to the petitioneRs.this writ petition has been filed, when representations in this regard did not yield any result. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners and an order dated 31.8.2012 passed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.13852/2012(s) (Megha Gontiya versus State & Ors.).the competent authority is directed to decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three weeks' from th...
Jageshwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8938/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Mohd. Ali, 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 6/07/12 in connection with Crime No.48/12 registered at P.S.Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Bahala, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366 of IPC and section 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. It is further submitted that nothing is alleged against this applicant in regard to commit rape on prosecutrix. As per prosecution it is only alleged against him that he abducted the prosecutrix Someshwari. It is submitted that prosecutrix Someshwari was in love with Mahesh who residing at Nasik and she went with this applicant up to the Nasik on her own accord....
Mahant Ramlala Das Guru Vs. Ramkrishna Das Guru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.15329 o8. 10.2012 Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amarpatan, district Satna in C.O.S.No.13-A/11 whereby his right to adduce evidence in support of the plaint has been closed by the trial court. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner has filed the civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on the basis of some Will, as alleged executed by his disciple in his favour. Although as per impugned order so many adjournments were given to the petitioner- plaintiff to adduce his evidence in support of the pleadings but neither the petitioner himself not his witness had entered in the witness box and in such p...
Virendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16398/20108. 10.2012 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. 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 foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitio...
Sunil Prakash Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.P.No.16662/2012 Sunil Prakash Dubey versus State of M.P.08.10.2012 Shri vishal Dhagat learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to take up second revision proceedings before the State in accordance with the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ramkinkar Vishwakarma versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2012 (2) MPLJ 690 With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Kalmu @ Kamlu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9325/2012 8/10/2012 Shri P.S.Tomar, 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 2/07/2012 in connection with Crime No.177/2000 registered at P.S.Banda, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 393 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that initially the applicant was enlarged on bail thereafter, trial Court issued the warrant of arrest against him on his non-appearance and in compliance of the said arrest warrant, applicant has been sent in jail. It is submitted that applicant went for his earning livelihood therefore, could not appear before the trial Court. In these circumstances, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering t...
Harshraj Vaidya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.C.C.No.998/12 08.10.2012 Heard Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for applicants on the application for restoration of W.P.No.7834/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as he had no knowledge about peremptory order dated 27.06.2012 he could not comply with the same which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for non-compliance of the peremptory order. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant No.1 and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.7834/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number subject to the petitioner clearing the default within a week and also paying P.F.within seven days for issuance of notice to the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition informing them of the restoration of the writ petition. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be p...
Chimanlal Kushwaha Vs. the M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Chimanlal Kushwaha versus MP State Electricity Board & OtheRs.08.10.2012. Shri Raman Patel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in the respondents establishment since 1982 and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order....
Poona Shankar Sadh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.16775/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, 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 mentio...
ind Synergy Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.A.No.597/2012 IND Synergy Ltd., Union of India & others 8.10.2012 Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vikram Singh, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondent No.2. Shri Amitabha Gupta and Shri Priyankush Jain, Counsel for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays 3 days' time to file reply. Prayer is opposed by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for appellant, who submitted that inspite of allowing opportunity to the respondent No.3 on 25.6.2012, reply has not been filed till date, so the right may be closed. In the alternative, it was submitted by him that operation of the order Annexure A/2 dated 4.10.2008 by the Central Government may be stayed. Aforesaid prayer is opposed by respondent No.3 who submitted that the order Annexure A/2 dated 4.10.2008 has already been complied with by the State Government, on 14.7.2011, by passing an order, but because of the ad interim writ, aforesaid order has not been communicated. It is sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »