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.
Anuj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18031/2012 (Anuj Singh versus State and otheRs.31.10.2012 Heard Shri S.N.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the District Education Officer, Jabalpur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for correction of his father's name in the marksheet issued by the respondents/authorities on the ground that there is no provision for change of name in the education code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority has not taken into consideration the fact that the present case is not one of change of name but correction of mistake that has occurred in recording the name of the father of the petitioner in the marksheet. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be prima facie correct on perusal of the impugned order. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is d...
Shiv Prasad Morge Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Shiv Prasad Mogre versus State of MP and otheRs.31.10.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is a Class IV employee and has been transferred from Barhi District Katni to Singodi, PHC Vijayraghavgarh in the same District. On the ground that petitioner is a Class IV employee and has certain difficulties in carrying out the order of transfer, he submitted a representation; and, recommendation for cancellation of the transfer has been made by Member of Parliament. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that a representation filed by the petitioner in the matter is still pending. Under such circumstances, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioners submitting a fresh representation to the competent authority, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law by a speaking order. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, sta...
Arjun Dev Nagpal Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Indutrial Development Corpor ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.12847/2011 Arjun Dev Nagpal Petitioner vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.Cr.C. No.12851/2011 Arjun Dev Nagpal Petitioner vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.Cr.C. No.12854/2011 Arjun Dev Nagpal Petitioner vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.Cr.C. No.12864/2011 Arjun Dev Nagpal Petitioner vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jairam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 F.A. 216/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA F.A. No.216/2006 .........Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Bhopal Prescribed Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Act, old Secretariat , Bhopal Versus .......Respondents:1. Jairam, S/o Asharam 2. Ramratan, S/o Asharam 3. Sadaram, S/o Asharam All residents of Village Bairagarh, Chichli, Tahsil Huzur, Bhopal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer Respondents by - Shri Amitabh Gupta, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (31/10/2012) By taking the shelter of Section 96 CPC, the unsuccessful defendants have preferred this appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.5.2005 passed by learned 10th Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Bhopal in Civil Suit No.54- A/2003 decreeing the suit of plaint...
Mohd. Taiyab Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
M.C.C.No.1225/2012 (Mohd. Taiyab Ansari versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application seeking extension of time to file the representation as directed by this court by order dated 02.09.2011 passed in W.P.No.14651/2011, which had been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the improper determination of his GPF amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant could not file the representation within two weeks as stipulated in the order and therefore, he prays that the period may be extended for two weeks from today to file a representation. It is observed that the observation regarding filing of representation within two weeks etc.made by this Court in W.P.No.14651/2011 is only in respect of the consequent directions issued by this court regarding expeditious disposal within two months thereafter. This Court did not mean to say...
Dinesh Kumar Bhadoria Vs. Managing Director (Human Resources) M.P. Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17552/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the respondent no.3, imposing penalty of recovery of Rs.3,09,272/- and stoppage of two increments of pay without cumulative effect on the petitioner, on the grounds that the responsibility to carry out the work was not on the petitioner, on the other hand as per the delegation of functions and powers such responsibility was on the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was holding the post of Junior Engineer only and was thus not responsible to discharge such duties. Without conducting any proper inquiry, the order impugned has been passed imposing penalty. It is contended that only a show cause notice was given whereas these facts were required to be proved by adducing evidence and as such a detailed inquiry was necessary as provided in proviso to the Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Classi...
Purshottam Gond Vs. Manrajiya Bai Gond
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17024 o31. 10.2012 Shri Rajendra Gupta, counsel for the petitioneRs.Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days, notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.13329/12, returnable by fixing the date within six weeks, be issued to respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter further but shall not pass the final judgment or decree in the matter unless the order of this court. C.C as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Purnima Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P. No.17853/2012 31.10.2012 Smt. Sarita Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 18th September 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 43/2010 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order Tribunal declined to interfere with the order dated 7.7.2004; whereby, application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of death of her husband was rejected. Petitioner's husband Kamlesh was employed as Labourer with the respondent Central Ordnance Depot. He died on 29.9.2001. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 18.12.2001. The claim was negatived vide order dated 2.7.2002 after considering her case thrice as per prevalent Rules. Petitioner preferred Original Application No. 609/2002 before the Tribun...
Sheikh Rasid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Sheikh Rasid versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18266 31. 10.2012 Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered in W.P.No.16725/2011 decided on 30.3.2012 by this Court. The issue raised therein was entitlement of Gangman employed in Public Works Department for regularization as per rules of Madhya Pradesh Lok Nirman Vibhag Me Karyarat Sthai Avam Asthai Gang Men Ke Sewa Niyaman 1996, (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996).Writ Petition was allowed in the following terMs.Placing reliance on Madhya Pradesh Lok Nirman Vibhag Me Karyarat Sathai Avam Asathai Gang Men Ke Sewa Niyaman 1996, (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996) rule framed in accordance with the proviso to Article 306 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners seek direction to the respondents t...
Rahim Khan Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17541/20131. 10.2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »