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.
Gokul Prasad Vs. the State Level Committee for Sc/St
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 W.A.No.265/2012 Gokul Prasad The State Level Committee & another 3.10.2012 Shri Vivek Dalal, Counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.1.2012 in Writ Petition No.15227/2007 by which learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and remanded back the matter to the Caste Verification Committee, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 33.by which a bar created in Madhuri Patil for assailing the judgment of Single Bench in writ appeal has been overruled. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is not challenging the order insofar as it relates to remanding the matter to Caste Verification Committee but is challenging the ...
Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistics Corporation Vs. Subhash Chand ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.1325/20103. 10.2012 Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Smt.Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Ku.Surabhi Ahirkar, Advcoate for the respondents. I.A.No.15367/2011 for condonation of delay. There is delay of 26 days in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. In view of the aforesaid, delay in filing this appeal is con- doned. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.10.2011 in W.P.No.3435/2007 by which the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order, annexure P/1, and directed the appellants herein to convene a review DPC in the light of quashment of the order, annexure P/1, dated 12.9.2005. The learned Single Judge further directed that in case the petitioner is found fit for promo- tion then he be given due seniority above his junior and also mon- etary benefit to which the respondent is entitled. This order has been assailed by the appellant o...
Amit Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.15684/2012 (Amit Kumar versus State of MP and otheRs.03.10.2012 Petitioner in person along with his counsel Shri Virendra Singh. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr.counsel with Shri Sushil Mishra, for the respondent No.7. Shri Ritesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.8. The Police authorities have produced the missing person. She appears and states before this court that she wishes to stay and go with her parents with whom she is living on her own and free will without any pressure or coercion. In view of the statement of the missing person Aradhna Shukla before this court, I find no reason to issue any direction in the present petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the statement of the petitioner made before this court. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ramsiya Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.9951/2012 3.10.2012 Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, counsel for petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents along with Shri P.L.Awasthy, D.S.P., Rewa present. It is submitted by Shri Tiwari that today he has filed status report in the office. It is submitted that till date Ku.Puja Shukla could not be traced out, however continuous effort has been made to trace out Ku.Puja Shukla. We have enquired from D.S.P.Rewa, who has also stated that in spite of efforts made by him Ku.Puja Shukla could not be traced out, however he prays further two months time to produce the corpus of Ku.Puja Shukla, before this Court. But we are not inclined to allow such a long time, however we allow respondents one month's time to produce the corpus of Ku.Puja Shukla, before this Court. For this purpose, we adjourn hearing of this petition for 5.11.2012, on which date the respondents to produce the corpus of Ku.Puja Shukla, before this Court. On the next date of hearing Shri P.L.Awasthy, D.S.P.Rewa,...
Unnati Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11227/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Smt. Savana Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
rajesh tiwari versus state W.P.No.16477/2012 3/10/2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents State on advance notice. Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary and has filed this writ petition challenging the transfer of the petitioner from one Gram Panchayat to another. Challenge to the order is made mainly on the ground that the policy for transfer of the Panchayat Secretaries has been formulated by the State Government vide policy dated 31.3.2012, whereas under the M.P.Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 and as per Rule 7 of the said Rule, policy has to be formulated by the Commissioner and not by the State Government, accordingly contending that the policy is by a unauthorized authority, this petition is filed. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the respond...
Bhola Prsad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16295/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya & others versus State of M.P.& others [2006 (1) MPLJ 23 .as also in the case of Ram Naresh Pathak versus State of M.P.[W.P.No.13520/2006(S)].and the bunch of cases decided on 25.9.2006, the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages of the period when he was not continued in the employment on account of making application of a circular and retiring the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that the petitioner though is reinstated in service, such wages have not been paid to him. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra).this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to grant similar be...
NitIn Chitransh Shrivastava Vs. Dr. H.S. Universtity
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.1302/2012 Nitin Chitransh Shrivastava Dr.H.S.University & others 3.10.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, counsel for petitioner. Smt.Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate with Ms.Surbhi Ahirkar, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that she has received instructions from the respondent no.2 that the petitioner has successfully passed the examination and has achieved Ist Division. It is submitted by the respondent nos.1 & 2 that they may be permitted to declare the result of the petitioner. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the stigma, which is against the petitioner may also be quashed and the aforesaid supplementary examination may be treated as main examination of the petitioner. To this Smt.Menon, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the notification to the Vice Chancellor of the University, who would consider the afo...
Lalit Kishore Choure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Lalit Kishore Choure versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13168 3. 10.2012: Shri Arun Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as an Asst. Grade-III in the office of Executive Engineer Narmada Development Division Khandwa and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from Khandwa to District Khargon. Interalia contending that petitioner is to retire in July, 2013 and as transfer at the fag end of his career is unsustainable this writ petition was filed taking note of aforesaid ground. On 24.8.2012 order of transfer was stayed and not respondents have filed reply and it is pointed out by respondents that vide Annexure R-1 dated 9.8.2012 option of three places where the petitioner can be transferred were obtained. Petitioner has submitted his option vide Annexure R-2 and till date final decision is not taken. Respondents have tried to justify their action and contend that as op...
Ku.Vipra Vandani JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16722/2012 (Vipra Vandini Jain....Vs....State of M.P.& otheRs.03-10-2012 Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned senior counsel with Shri Harmeet Ruprah, for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that petitioner's unfair means case, on the basis of which the petitioner's result of 4th semester final examination of B.Com. has been cancelled, is not being finally decided by the respondents No.4 and 5 in spite of repeated directions of the respondent No.3. It is stated that on one hand the respondents No.4 and 5 are not deciding the unfair means case of the petitioner and on the other hand they are not permitting her to participate in 5th semester examination after granting her admission in the 5th semester and, therefore, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the authorities concerned. In the circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the recor...
- ‹ Prev
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- Next ›
- Last »