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.
Kamlesh Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.A.No.979/2012 Kamlesh Kumar Ahirwar State of M.P.& others 5.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.7.2012 passed in W.P.No.11185/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against his transfer from Bina to Rajgarh in the same capacity of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, was dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant on various grounds, which relates to the personal inconvenience and also to the policy of State Government granting immunity from transfer to the Office Bearer of the registered trade union. It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground the transfer order may be quashed. It is settled law that on the basis of transfer policy of the Government, transfer order cannot be interfered. However a person aggrieved by such transfer order may represent his case to the competent authority for redressal of the grievance. In the impugned order ...
Naveen Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
M.C.C.No.1172/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the State. This application is filed for restoration of W.P.No.5184/2009 which was dismissed because of non- compliance of order dated 17.07.2009 by which the applicants were directed to make payment of process fee upto 21.07.2009 failing which the writ petition was directed to be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. It is stated that the aforesaid process fee could be paid on 23.07.2009, but because of the peremptory order, the writ petition was dismissed. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate has no objection if delay is condoned and writ petition is restored. In the writ petition, prayer of the applicants was for declaration of the result of B.Ed., for which they had already appeared. Considering aforesaid, we condone the delay in delayed payment of process fee and direct Office to restore W.P.No.5184/2009 to its original number and to...
Dhari Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1904 OF 200.Dhari Yadav & another. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2222 OF 200.Komal Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A. No.1904/2009 and Shri D.N.Shukla, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A.No.2222/2009. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 5th day of October, 2012) This judgment passed by me shall govern the disposal of above mentioned Criminal Appeals, since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment.2. These criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 14/9/2009 passed by the Third Additional S...
Madhusudan Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16386/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed person 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...
Vinay Kumar Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16282/20105. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Admit. Issue notices to the respondents, on both counts, on payment of P.F.within seven days, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P.Jan Shiksha Rules, 2003, as the petitioners are entitled to continue as a Jan Shikshak for a period of three years from the date of nomination which have not elapsed since the date of deputation of the petitioneRs.therefore, operation of the impugned order be stayed. It is stated that in identical case arising out of the same issue, this Court has issued interim direction in W.P.No.14506/2011, W.P.No.16533/2011 and W.P.No.16807/2011 vide orders dated 29.08.2011, 29.09.2011 and 01.10.2011 respectively. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the lea...
Dr.Vijay Kumar Jat Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Vijay Kumar Jat versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13644/2009 05/10/2012 Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. None appears for Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. Petitioner and Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 were absorbed as Sahayak Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari vide order Annexure-P3 dated 15.2.2006. Petitioner's name in the said list appears at Sr.No.13 and he is shown to be absorbed w.e.f.19.4.1988, along with the petitioner by the same order, one Shri K.S.Bhatt was also absorbed and his name appears at Sr.No.10 and he is shown to be absorbed w.e.f.1.6.1989. Inter-alia contending that Shri K.S.Bhatt is junior to the petitioner and in the light of an order passed in W.P.No.3505/2007(s) Annexure-P6, Dr.K.S.Bhatt has been granted promotion on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari vide order Annexure-P11 dated 29.6.2010 and the claim of the petitioner has not been considered, even though, Shri Bhatt is junior to him, this writ petit...
Guneshwar Krishan Manuja Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
MCC No.1128/2012 05/10/2012 Shri B.P.Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.10904/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing MCC for restoration of MCC No.552/2012 which was dismissed on account of peremptory order of this Court. It is contended that the order passed by this Court on 14/05/2012 was not within the knowledge of learned counsel for the applicant as this case was not noted by him in the cause list. This being so, the peremptory order could not be complied with. The application is supported by an affidavit of counsel. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the MCC is condoned. MCC has been filed for restoration of another MCC which was filed for restoration of writ petition No.3521/1998. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the counsel, the same is allowed. MCC No.552/2012 is restored to its original number on removal of the default within a ...
Neeraj Chandra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Neeraj Chandra versus State & ORS.W.P.No.22036/2011 05/10/2012 Shri Ajay.S.Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for the respondents/State. Candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Sub-Inspector has been rejected mainly on the ground that he does not meet the physical standard prescribed with regard to measurement of his chest. By filing the document Annexure-R1 indicating the measurement, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner does not meet the statutory prescribed measurement and, therefore, the ground raised in this writ petition is unsustainable. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the M.P.Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rule, 1997 and Rule 8 (i).thereafter, it is seen that in the note pointed to the said rule, it is stated that in case of any dispute with regard to physical measurement, decision of the Chief Medical Officer of the District shall be final...
Ramesh Chourasia Vs. Chief Information Commission, Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.15055/2012 (Ramesh Kumar versus C.I.C.) 05.10.2012 Heard Shri B.K.Upadhyay, 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 Chief Information Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh to decide the petitioner's appeal filed before the said Commissioner. On a perusal of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner has neither mentioned the date on which the alleged appeal has been filed before the Chief Information Commissioner not has any date been mentioned in the document (annexure P-3).which is said to be the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not mentioned the number of the appeal and therefore it is not clear as to whether the Chief Information Commissioner has registered the appeal filed by the petitioner or as to whether the same is pending or not. In the circumstances, I find no reason to issue any direction, as prayed for by the petitioner. The...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.2214/2005 5.10.2012 Heard Smt. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel, with Shri Sharad Punj, learned counsel, for the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur. The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, has filed the status/compliance report today. The learned counsel for Cantonment Board is directed to supply a copy of the same to the learned respective counsel for interveners representing Shri Ram Temple (Ramlila Ground).Durga Temple (Modibada).Ganesh Temple (Modibada).Pahalwan Baba Temple & Shani Temple, Theatre Road, and Chausath Yogini Temple. Interlocutory applications in respect to these temples will be heard on the next date. As regards Temple of Lord Bajrangbali, Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the interveneRs.is directed to supply copies of I.A.Nos.7434/2008 and 7435/2008 to the learned counsel for Cantonment Board within two days. The learned counsel for Cantonment Board shall file reply to these applications on the next date of hearing. Heard Shri R.P.Kanojiya,...
- ‹ Prev
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- Next ›
- Last »