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.
Ashok Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Ashok Lodhi versus State of MP and otheRs.04.10.2012. Shri Priyank Choubey for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Shyam Sunder Bangre Vs. Shri D.P.Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Shyam Sundar Bangar versus Shri D.P.Ahirwar & ORS.Conc No.1803 4. 10.2012: Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A. Chourasiya, learned counsel for non-applicant. Considering the fact that Writ Appeal No.1050/2011 is pending before Division Bench, for the present, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt, instead applicant is granted liberty to seek enforcement of order after writ appeal is decided. That apart, it is seen that the writ petition was allowed in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P.& Others versus R.L.Ogale and Others 2006(1)MPLJ 412 but not a Full Bench of this Court in W.A No.311/2011 (State of M.P.& Anr. versus Puranlal Nahir) has overruled the law laid down in the case of R.L.Ogale (supra).as a result the writ appeal filed would be allowed in all probability. That being so, it is not appropriate to initiate action for contempt at this stage when the writ appeal is pending...
Smt. Ashok Kumari Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.16837/2010 (s) 4/10/2012 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Brijendra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Challenging an order of remand dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, in the matter of appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta to the Centre in question, this writ petition has been filed. Both the petitioner Smt. Ashok Kumari and respondent No.7 Smt. Ambika Singh were candidates who had submitted their application for appointment to the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta for the Centre in question. A select list was prepared and as per the merit list prepared petitioner Smt. Ashok Kumari received 59 marks and her name was kept at Srl. No.1. Respondent No.7 received 58 marks and her name was kept at Srl. No.2. However, the Project Officer on certain objections received, considered the objections and appointed respondent No.7. Inter alia contending that her mer...
Gopibai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1759/1997 Criminal Appeal No.3280/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.1759/1997 Pavan Kumar and 2 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.3280/1999 Gopi Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the appellants. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of October, 2012) Both the criminal appeals arose from a common sessions trial. The evidence is common therefore the appellants Pawan Kumar, Halkebhai etc. have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.8.1997 whereas the appellant Gopi Bai has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.11.1999 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST N...
Sita Sharan Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Sita Sharan Shukla versus State of MP and otheRs.04.10.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Koni No.2, Block Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Harra Tola, Sohagpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as to how the students-teacher ratio sho...
T.R. Raikwar (Teeka Ram Raikwar) Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
T.R.Raikwar (Teeka Ram Raikwar) versus Food Corporation of India & ORS.04.10.2012. Smt. Ranno Rajak for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Being aggrieved by an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on 19.7.2011 vide Annexure P/30, whereby a penalty of reduction of three stages in the time scale of pay was imposed upon the petitioner, an appeal was preferred vide Annexure P/31 on 17.9.2011, and the grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal has not been decided even though more than one year has lapsed. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.1 the appellate authority, is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance to law by speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall file a copy of this order alongwith relevant documents before th...
Prem Narayan Mishra Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.12702/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.3. In terms of the order issued on 10.9.2012, humdust notices were issued to the respondent No.4 for service of notices of this writ petition. However, it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the respondent No.4 has proceeded on study leave and since he is not interested to continue in the services, humdust notice could not be affected on the respondent No.4. He orally as well as by making an application, prayed permission to delete the name of respondent No.4 from the cause title. The oral prayer as well as the aforesaid application is considered and allowed. Name of respondent No.4 be deleted from the cause title of the writ petition. The effect of deletion of name of respondent No.4 would be considered at the ...
M/S Divhya Marble Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 W.P No.11556/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.11556/2006 PETITIONER : M/S DIVYA MARBLE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Counsel with Shri Kunal Thakre, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (04/10/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, whereby the application, filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the entries in the register regarding principal place of business, has been rejected on the ground that the principal place of business of the petitioner is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar concerned and, therefore, the change sought to be made in the entries is beyond ...
Ramu Vs. Gulabrao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
(1) M.A. No.5612/2008 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.5612 / 2008 Appellant Ramu S/o. Dhimra Pawar, Caste Mehra, Occupation Govt. Service (Headmaster), Primary School, R/o. Village Jean, P.S. Chicholi, District Betul (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Gulabrao S/o. Narayan Sable, Occupation Driver, R/o. Gothana, P.S. Tehsil and District Betul (M.P.) 2. M/s. Natwar Transport Company, through Pukhraj S/o. Narmada Prasad Agrawal, Gorebazar Kamthi, Nagpur, At present Azad Ward Tikari, Betul (M.P.) 3. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 5th Line Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) ________________________________________________________ Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for appellant. Shri Subodh Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Rohit Jain, Advocates for respondent no.3. ________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 04th of October, 2012) (2) M.A. ...
Devraj Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Devraj Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16507 4. 8.2012 Shri Sudhanshu K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate, on advance notice for respondents/State. Petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 23.11.2010, as the suspension has continued for more than three months petitioner seeks enhancement of suspension allowance to 75% in accordance to circular and policy of the State Government. As claim of petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance is not being considered, this writ petition is filed. Keeping in view the fact that the disciplinary authority has not considered the claim of petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance, for the present without entering into controveRs.on merit it is directed that on petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with copies of the representation the disciplinary authority shall decide the claim of petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allo...
- ‹ Prev
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- Next ›
- Last »