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. Vandana BaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16220/2011 (Ku. Vandana Bai Bain versus State of MP and otheRs.05.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the University. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to hold university elections in accordance with the recommendations of Lyngdoh Committee. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the recommendations of the aforesaid Committee, the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State Government for conducting elections, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P/5, is contrary to the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee and therefore, eligibility criteria prescribed therein be quashed. From a perusal of the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner claims that the eligibility criteria regarding age for contesting election under graduate couRs.be ...
Shivmurti Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.16498/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. 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 in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 an...
Gaindabai Vs. Rammurti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.3892/2012 (Gaindabai versus Rammurti and otheRs.05.10.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 27.12.2011 passed by S.D.O., Rajnagar District Chhatarpur in Election Petition no.06/A-89/2009-10 whereby the petitioner's election petition has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 was the returned candidate in the election for the post of Sarpanch conducted in Gram Panchayat Sevdi, Tahsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur, held on 21.01.2010. It is submitted that immediately thereafter the petitioner had filed an application under rule 80 of the M.P.Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 seeking recounting on the said application but the matter was deferred on the ground that the matter was sensitive and recounting would be done at block level. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed an election ...
M/S Simplex Tubular Structures Pvt Ltd Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkar ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
R.P.No.485/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the respondent. This review application has been filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal No.4/2011 on 14.5.2012, on the ground that in paragraph 5 of the order passed by this Court, this has been held that the interest amount should not be more than half of the amount of security as has been granted by the Facilitation Council. It is contended that such a finding recorded by this Court is contrary to the law inasmuch as a higher percentage of interest is prescribed under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It is contended that prior to coming into force of the aforesaid Act, 1993 Act on the similar line was in force and, therefore, the claim of interest was to be governed by the law prescribed under the aforesaid two Acts. However, it is contended that the applicant would be satisfie...
Rajendra Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
rajendra singh gond versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.NO.12255/2012 17-09-2012. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Govt. Middle School Semariya, District Sidhi and vide order Annexure P-1 dated 15-07-2012 has been transferred to Primary School Barow, Sankul Kendra Khaddi, District Sidhi. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that respondent no.3 has passed the order of transfer, he is not competent to pass the transfer order because he took charge on 16-07-2012 after suspension of the regular DEO namely Shri G.P.Patel and this transfer order passed on 15-07-2012 back dated by him is unauthorized. The respondents were granted time to seek instructions. The respondents have not filed any reply but on oral instructions Shri Rajesh Tiwari, points out that the transfer order has been passed by the competent authority and there is ...
Smt. Asha Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Smt. Asha Tripathi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16941 5. 10.2012: Shri Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Principal in Government Higher Secondary School, Gurdh, Rewa. Petitioner was transferred from the said school to another school in the same district and, therefore, petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition W.P.No.12504/2012 and on 9.8.2012 this Court found that the order of transfer is neither passed in violation of any statutory provisions not does the same suffers from bias or mala fide, accordingly finding no ground for interference the petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner's representation has not been decided and not she is transferred to another school in the same district by modifying earlier order of transfer and by contending that...
Manoj Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Rishiraj Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Contempt Petition No.2004 5. 10.2012: Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Keeping in view the reply filed by respondents and the indications made therein to the effect that service of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi itself has been terminated, petitioner should not challenge the order of termination. It is stated by Shri Pranay Verma that this order was never served on the petitioner and it is only when reply is filed in these proceedings that petitioner is made aware of such an action taken. Be it as it may be, these are grounds on which order of termination has to be challenged and on such ground it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law and challenge the order terminating his service in the post of Panchayat Karmi, the application is dispose...
Smt. Vitola Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16505/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Petitioner is 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 mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, ...
Mohta Cement Pvt. Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Provisions of Co ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.13829 / 2012 (Mohta Cement, PVT.Ltd..Vs...State of MP & otheRs.05-10-2012 Shri Ravindra Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by tender notice dated 30-7-2012 issued by the respondents and refusal of the respondent No.3 to issue tender form to the petitioner. After arguing at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that any cause of action accrues or arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. In the circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction to hear the matter for further proceedings by taking up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law . With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petition...
Bhuralal Jhariya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 M.C.C.No.1433/20005. 10.2012 Shri Surendra Verma, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respond- ents. Be listed for hearing on 31.10.2012. In the meantime, respondent no.3 either to comply with the order passed by the labour court or to remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing to explain the diffi- culty which he may be facing for the compliance of the order. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for its communication to the respondent no.3. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge HS...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »