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.
Ku. Kesar Iqbal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.7292 o8. 10.2012 Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for the respondents. This matter is pending since 2009 and till today no return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. On asking the State's Counsel in this regard, he seeks further period of one month to file the same. Let the return be submitted within the aforesaid period of one month otherwise this petition shall be considered on the basis of available record on its own merits. Besides this, office is directed to call the original impugned ceiling case from the concerning competent authority and be kept the same in the safe custody in the sealed cover and whenever this matter is listed such record be sent to this court. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
M.Baishya Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.14166/2009) M. Baishya and others Vs. Union of India and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri, Akash Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for Respondents Shri, S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate O R D E R (8/10/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Having worked in various capacity in Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, petitioners, twenty seven in number, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Much after their retirement they sought implementation of orders in Original Application No. 636/1997 and 140/1995 decided on 13.3.2002 affirmed with slight modification in W.P. No. 3587/2002 and W.P. No. 3655/2002 decided on 8.9.2005. Original Application No. 822/2006 preferred by the petitioners was disposed of on 23.11.2006 w...
Lalluram Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16688/2012 08.10.2012 Ms.Rajeshwari Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. The present writ petition has been filed complaining the change in the service conditions after appointment of petitioner. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court given in the case of Vinot Admache and others versus State of M.P.and others (W.P.No.6621/2008 (s).decided on 28.09.2010. This Court has categorically recorded the finding in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the aforesaid order as under :- 14. It is a case where the respondents have called for the applications for appointment on the posts of Hand Pump Mechanics in the pay scale of Rs.3500-80-4000-100-5200/- and once the appointment is made, the terms of appointment cannot be changed unilaterally.15. Accordingly, petitioners are right in contending that their service conditions be changed not on the...
Ramsujan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :605. OF 200.(s) Mukesh Kumar Rai V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :671. OF 200.(s) Ramsujan Patel & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :672. OF 200.(s) Preetam Singh Thakur V/s State of M.P. & Ors. & Writ Petition No :674. OF 200.(s) Navneet Tiwari & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.10.2012 As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these four petitions and as the impugned orders are also identical in nature they are being disposed of by this common order and for the sake of con...
Smt. Rewti Malik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16619/20108. 10.2012 Shri Mukesh Pandey, 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 petitioners...
Ravendra Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9315/2012 8/10/2012 Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.P.Pandey, Advocate for the Objector. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL 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.88/12, registered at police station Jaso, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 498- A/34 of IPC read with section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that complainant Pappi is his wife and she lodged a false report against him. It is submitted that previously there was an agreement between the parties wherein nothing was alleged in regard to the harassment committed on complainant therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the Objector as well as State oppo...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. Mr. S.R. Mohanty
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Con.C.No.95/2010 8.10.2012 Petitioner present in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that though the Drug Controller of Madhya Pradesh has filed her affidavit, but no consequential action has been taken by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to register a criminal case against the culprits, who manufactured and sent the drug, namely Oxytocin to Jabalpur in bulk without any label etc.It is also submitted by the petitioner that mis-use of Oxytocin is very harmful to the human beings, if the milk is extracted from the animals by injecting Oxytocin to such animals. It is submitted that though the aforesaid drug has been recovered in bulk, but no action has been taken by the local administration or by the State to make public aware in respect of harmful effect of the drug, if it is injected to the animals and milk is extracted and consumed by the human beings. The petitioner also submitted that in spite of recovery of huge amount of Oxytoc...
Ashish @ Sanu (Patariya) Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1...W.P.No.8414 of 2012 Ashish State of M.P.& others 08.10.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Though the respondent/State have filed progress report in the matter but we are not satisfied. It is alleged that the wife of the petitioner is residing with respondent No.6. Respondents have taken a pretext that Smt. Babita has contacted Nikah with respondent No.6 but she is a married wife of the petitioner and without seeking a decree of divorce from the competent Court, this Nikah has been performed with the respondent No.6. The factual position deserves to be answered by the respondent No.6 and Smt. Babita. Apart from this, it is not clear whether that she is residing with respondent No.6 by her own free will or in a compelling circumstances. This fact can be answered only after the production of corpus of Smt. Babita before this Court. In these circumstances, we direct respondent No.2 and 3 to produce the corpus of Smt. Babita, failing which respondent No.2 shall...
Raju Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Raju Pawar and others versus State of MP and otheRs.08/10/2012: Shri Jitendra Arya, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. Petitioners have filed this petition claiming regular pay scale in view of the Circulars issued by the State Government extending the benefit of regular pay scale to employees who are working in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment against sanctioned vacant posts. Even though by filing return respondents have tried to contend that petitioners are not entitled for the said benefit but from the facts that have come on record by virtue of rejoinder and documents filed therewith, it is seen that the Indore Bench of this Court vide Order passed on 29.10.2003 in W.P.No.4389/03 following an earlier order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.128/99 (Smt. Savitri Bai versus State of M.P.) directed the State Government to consider the case of employees in the light of directions issued in the case ...
Balgovind Napit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16388/20105. 10.2012 Shri A.K.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were appointed vide order dated 12.08.1998 as is clear from Annexure P-1, yet while issuing the gradation list of all such persons, before the name of the petitioneRs.wrong date of appointment has been mentioned. Though a representation has been made but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, they have come before this Court. The basis on which the gradation list has been prepared by the respondents-authorities is not clear. The covering memo itself prescribes that in case there is an error in mentioning any facts in the gradation list, the person concerned can make a representation. If such representation is made by the petitioneRs.the respondents-authorities are duty bound to consider the same and decide according to law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- Next ›
- Last »