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.
Bindu Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17545/2012 (Bindu Sahu versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are not filing quarterly report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as directed by this Court by order dated 23.08.2011 passed in W.P.No.15272/2010 in respect of the steps taken by them for searching out the corpus of the missing minot daughter of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to fact that similar issues raised by the petitioner in the previous petition has already been dealt with by this Court and appropriate orders have been passed, I find no reason to entertain the second petition filed on the same ground. As far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.15272/2010 is concerned, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to take...
Brij Mohan Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Home ( ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17951/2012 Brij Mohan Verma versus State of M.P.& ORS.31.10.2012 Shri Shobhit Aditya learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal learned counsel for respondent no.3. The missing person Priya Verma has appeared before this Court on her own through her counsel. She states before this Court that she is more than 18 years of age and is living with respondent no.3 on her own free will. In view of the aforesaid statement of the alleged missing person Priya Verma, no case for issuance of any writ of Habeas Corpus is made out. The petition filed by the petitioner is, accordingly, disposed of by recording the statement of the missing person. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. Vijit Patni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.17160/12. 31.10.2012 Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without challenging any specific order for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the District Judge, Bhopal to expedite the trial of regular Civil Suit No.433- A/2011, and decide the same on some early date. In the present scenario of the matter according to which, the impugned suit was filed only in the year 2011, I am not inclined to entertain this petition even for issuing the notice to the other side hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, in the available circumstances, the trial Court is directed to hear and decide the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC on some early date probably, within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order, if such application has not been deci...
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18239 31. 10.2012: Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Senior Lecturer in the State Institute of Science Education, PSM Campus, Jabalpur under the administrative control of respondent No.4. Petitioner was initially appointed in his parent department in the year 1992 thereafter deputed to work in the establishment of respondent No.4 since 2000. It is the case of petitioner that he has been working in the same institute for a long period of time since 2000 and he claims absorption of service in institute in question i.e.the State Institute of Science Education, PSM Campus, Jabalpur in accordance to the M.P.School Education Teacher Education and Training Academic (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2011 and post sanctioned under the the said rule. Inter alia pointi...
Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17189/12 (O).31.10.2012. Shri G.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned GA for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to comply the order dated 18.7.2006 (Ann. P1) passed by this Court in WP No.3199/1999. The matter is listed today for appropriate order on the question of maintainability of this petition. In the couRs.of the argument, I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that on account of non-compliance of the impugned order (Ann. P.1) by the respondents' authorities since 18.7.2006 he has filed the Contempt Petition under Article 215 of Constitution of India against the respondents, the same is pending for adjudication before this Court and the same was listed today before the coordinate Bench of this Court. I am of the considered view that for the purpose of compliance of the or...
Amar Nath Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Amar Nath Pandey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.18119/2012 31/10/2012 Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade-III in the Schedule Caste Welfare Department. It was reported that in the matter of distribution of scholarship to various students, petitioner has committed illegality. On complaint being received, it seems that the action was taken and pending departmental enquiry, the petitioner is suspended. The said suspension is challenged and the only ground canvassed before me at the time of hearing was that in the case of the petitioner, the action is taken and he is suspended, whereas against three more employees working along with the petitioner namely R.S.Ravi, Smt. Raj Kumar and Motilal Gupta, no action is taken and they have not been suspended. Contending that in the case of these three employees, they are not being suspended and the petitioner having been sus...
Narayan Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.18306/12 (s) 31/10/12 Shri V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Considering the fact that representation filed by the petitioner with regard to his transfer from one Gram Panchayat to another is pending before the competent authority, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and till the representation is so decided, status quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Smt. Amrat Bai Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17525/2012 (Smt Amrat Bai versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri Anand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.2, State Information Commissioner to decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner prays for the relief as aforesaid, it is apparent from a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition as well as the appeal that the petitioner has not mentioned in the petition as to whether the respondent No.2 has registered the appeal and whether the matter is pending before him. It is also clear that the second appeal has been filed by the petitioner on 7-7-2012 and thereafter what steps that have been taken by the second appellate authority has not been mentioned in the petition. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to the respondent No.2, State Information Commission at thi...
Shri Ravindra Kumar Rai Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vaish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 M.C.C. No.1143/12 31/10/12 Shri Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to correct the case number in the cause title. The same be done in the Court immediately. As the petitioner has corrected the case number, the matter is heard on merit. This application has been filed for restoration of Con.C.No.1977/11 which has been dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel and finding the reasons given to be bonafide, this application is allowed. Con.C.No.1977/11 be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Smt. Pushpa JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Smt. Pushpa Jain versus State & ORS.W.P.No.18158/2012 31/10/2012 Shri B.D.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenging the advertisement issued on 8th of October, 2012 proposing to fill up the post of Hostel Warden of Girls Hostel, where the petitioner was posted vide Annexure-P1 on 15.12.2005, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Shri B.D.Jain, learned counsel points out that vide order Annexure-P1, petitioner was appointed and posted as a Hostel Warden and is still working, there is no vacancy available and inspite thereof, an advertisement is issued and the appointment is being made. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to continue on the post of Hostel Warden as is ordered vide Annexure-P1. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate on advance notice invites my attention to the order Annexure-P1 and points out that the petitioner is substantively working as a Teacher and while so working, an ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »