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.
Babulal Bagh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.14307/20105. 10.20102 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents on advance copy. The claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is with respect to counting of the service rendered in work charged contingency establishment as Coupe Guard for the purposes of fixation of his pension. Undisputedly the petitioner was engaged as a Coupe Guard w.e.f.26.02.1960 to 31.03.1968. He continued as such and later on was absorbed on the post of Forester w.e.f.01.04.1973. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired. While calculating the period of service of the petitioner for the purpose of fixation of pension, the benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner as work charged employee, has not been counted, though a representation in this respect is made in view of the circular issued by the State Government and, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is ...
Tarkeshwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.6325/2012 (Tarakeshwar Gupta & anr. versus State of M.P.& ors.) 05.10.2012 Heard Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioneRs.In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara to look into the complaint of the petitioners and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioneRs.With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
G.P.Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16337/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 on advance notice. Shri B.P.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on advance notice. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents No.3,4, and 5 on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents. At this stage, as all the respondents are represented through their counsel, no need to pay process fee for issuance of notices of this writ petition. The names of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents be reflected in the cause list. Let return be filed by the respondents within 15 days. List immediately thereafter for consideration. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Makhanlal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 Cr. A. No.1890/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1890/1996 Makhanlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri R.K. Verma counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 5th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No.37/96, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. I...
Smt. Usha Khobragade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.20427/2011 05.10.2012 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State. I.A.No.4616/2012, an application for taking rejoinder on record is considered and allowed. The rejoinder is taken on record. Two weeks' time as prayed by learned Deputy Government Advocate is granted to file additional return. I.A.No.4617/2012, an application for amendment in the writ petition is considered and allowed. Let the amendment be incorporated in the writ petition within 7 days. Learned Deputy Government Advocate will also look into the amended pleadings and will file the response of the respondents along with additional return. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Panchamlal Alias Pancham Singh Narvariya Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Panchamlal Narvariyat versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16901/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Ward Boy in Mandi Bamora District-Sagar and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, he has been transferred from Mandi Bamora District-Sagar to the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer Tikamgarh. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that there is no complaint or adveRs.report against the petitioner and as the administrative control of the petitioner is under a Chief Medical Officer, petitioner cannot be transferred. Contending that the Director Health Services M.P.Bhopal has exceeded his jurisdiction in transferring the petitioner and pointing out various personal inconveniences, due to education of his children, who have been admitted in schools in the present place, petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. Petitioner is ho...
Chamru Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16379/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. 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...
Smt. Prerna Mooghe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 WRIT PETITION No.16586/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitions succeeds...
Ashutosh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 W.P.No.11882/2012 Ashutosh Mishra versus State of M.P.& Ors 05.10.2012 Heard Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to revaluate the petitioner's answer sheets in respect of English Special relating to Class-12th Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the year 2011-12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had answered all the questions rightly and, therefore, he expected to be awarded 85 marks in English Special but the respondent Board has awarded him only 70 marks which is much below his expectation. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the answer sheets of the petitioner and the model answers filed by the petitioner. Apparently, the claim of the petitioner is based on his own personal perception which apparently and obviously differ fro...
Rizwan Ali Koti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16053/2011 (Rizwan Ali Koti and others versus State of MP and otheRs.05.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the University. Heard. The petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 petitioneRs.it is apparent that the petitioners claim that the eligibility criteria regarding age for contesting election under graduate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- Next ›
- Last »