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.
Mohammad Saleem Raeen Vs. Dr. Khaleel Mohammad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.14642 o08. 10.12 Shri Himanshu Khare, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ranjan Banerjee, counsel for the respondent. On asking the petitioners counsel to make the submission on the question of admission, on which, seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of the arguing counsel Shri P.S.Das as he has gone out of station. On asking regarding some facts of the matter from the petitioners counsel, on which, he submits that he has come without brief therefore he is unable to make any submission in the matter. Considering the difficulty of the appearing counsel, the case is directed to be placed before the court on 10.10.2012 and it is expected from the appearing counsel that he will come with brief of the matter so that he may do justice with the petitioneRs.I am of the considered view that without brief Advocate cannot save the right of the party in the matter. It does not mean that the Court is challenging the memory of the petitioners counsel but mere memory is not...
Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.11484/20108. 10.2012 Shri Rajendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. From the perusal of the records it transpired that certain disputes were adjudicated by this Court in the earlier round of litigation by order dated 09.03.2010 in W.P.No.13169/2008 (S).It is further seen that on certain occasion directions issued by this Court were looked into by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, who has submitted a note-sheet for consideration of the State Government keeping in view the fact that the original incumbent of the post had either retired or expired. The matter was referred to the State Government to take a final decision whether in view of certain circumstances as have been mentioned in the note-sheet, the benefit of grant of second Kramonnati could be extended to the said person or not. This was specifically done in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ peti...
Suresh Kumar Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16616/20108. 10.2012 Shri Shahidullah Baig, 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 petition...
Dilip Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
dilip kumar tripathi versus state W.P.No.13280/2012 8-10-2012 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent State. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjeev Mishra for respondent No.5. Petitioner claims to be a physically handicapped person and seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 to grant appointment to the petitioner. Appointment is sought for only because respondent No.2 the Commissioner, Nishaktjan, Bhopal has recommended for appointment of the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel raise a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition. It is stated by learned Senior Counsel that respondent No.5 is a Private Limited Company and is not amenable to a writ jurisdiction and no mandamus can be issued to respondent No.5 for appointment of the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesai...
Dr. B.L. Geete Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Medical Ed ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15648/20108. 10.2012 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Petitioners are Ayurvedic Medical Officers and claim grant of non-practicing allowance. The question involved in this writ petition and the relief prayed for already stands decided by this Court in W.P.No.5269/2007 (S) on 08.09.2010. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by this Court in the similar circumstances in W.P.No.5850/2003 and W.P.No.5269/2007 (S) and decide the claim of the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioneRs.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Kamlapati Dwivedi Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.122/2009(S) Kamlapati Dwivedi Vs. Union of India and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri, S.K. Rao Senior Advocate with Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate Counsel for Respondents Shri, N.S. Ruprah, Advocate O R D E R (8/10/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Order dated 20.10.2008 passed in Original Application No. 229/2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur is being challenged vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Vide impugned order Tribunal rejected the application whereby petitioner sought benefit of senior grade w.e.f. 7.10.1995 under Chattopadhyaya Pay Commission.3. Appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 7.10.1983 petitioner was promoted Ad hoc Post Graduate Teacher (Soc...
Arjun Kumar Pandit Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.5572 / 2012 (Arun Kumar Pandit & another ..Vs..RDVV, Jabalpur & otheRs.08-10-2012 Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent/ University. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though this Court has directed the learned counsel for the respondent/University to seek instructions in the matter and the learned counsel for the respondent/University has prayed for a week's time to file reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present petition he is only seeking a direction to the University to consider and decide their representation dated 5-4-2012 (Annexure P-3) wherein they have sought permission to appear in fifth semester examination of B.Sc. couRs.and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners be disposed of with the aforesaid direction to the respondent/University. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University submits that the aforesaid...
Ambika Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
ambika pr. patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16992 / 2012 (s) 8.10.2012: Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Harrideeh, Block Budhar, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Harrideeh, Block Budhar, Shahdol to Govt. Primary School Jhinkbijuri Budhar, Shahdol. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violate...
Bachhan Ji Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.14944/2011 08.10.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder vide I.A.No.4964/2012, but the same was misplaced by the Registry and, therefore, the photocopy of the same is obtained and placed it on record. The rejoinder is taken on record. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents is directed to seek instructions on the averments made in the rejoinder and to file an additional return indicating whether the fact of expunging the adveRs.remark of the petitioner from the service roll was taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee while the petitioner was considered along with respondents No.5 and 6 for promotion or not. The additional return be filed within three weeks. List immediately thereafter. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Mirja Faruque Baig Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.P.No.15277/12 (O) 8.10.2012. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyish Dharmadhikari, learned GA for the respondents, on advance copy. The petitioners/accused have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order bearing No.196 dated 5.6.2012 (Ann. P.8) passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest/ respondent No.2 in some appeal whereby his appeal has been dismissed. The petitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order argued that on earlier occasion the impugned case was decided by the Forest Authority against the petitioneRs.on which an appeal was filed under the concerning rules. The same was decided and dismissed by the Chief Conservator of Forest/ respondent No.2 against which a criminal revision was filed. The same was also dismissed, on which the petitioneRs.had approached to this Court with W.P.No.13603/11, the same was disposed of vide order dated 9.1.20...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »