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.
Smt. Kamala JaIn Vs. U.S.Kulshresht
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
CONC.No.1001/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Ashok K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, is present. Though in the writ petition, the State of Madhya Pradesh was arrayed as a respondent through the Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal, but in the Contempt Petition, the Secretary of the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh is not impleaded as party. Since the order is to be complied with by the said authority, it is directed that the Secretary/ Principal Secretary of the Finance Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, be added as a respondent in the Contempt Petition. I.A.No.10539/2012 an application for impleadment of two more respondent i.e.the Treasury Officer and the Commissioner Higher Education, is considered and allowed. The necessary amendment be incorporated in the Contempt Petition during two working days. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate will furnish the name of the person incumbent on...
Smt. Phool Kumari Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Home Departme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16205/2012 (Smt. Phool Kumari Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.03.10.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondents/police authorities in the incident of the death of the petitioner's daughter. In the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi is directed to look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and if action has not been taken in accordance with law issue appropriate direction do to so and ensure that the faith of the public in the police administration is strengthened and affirmed. To enable the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi to do so, a copy of the order passed ...
Hukumchandra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15678/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2...
Brijmohan Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.14876/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena versus State of M.P.And others (OA No.224/1992).The said decision was affirmed by this Court in the case of R.S.Sikarwar versus State of M.P.and others (W.P.No.19222/2003) decided on 21.2.2004 in the following manner :- 8. Before I discuss the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, it is appropriate to refer to the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under :- There might have been several cases in which Head Mistress of Middle School have been promoted on the post of Lecturer of Higher Secondary School. The State could easily provide material to us to demonstrate the manner in which the pay scale has been fixed. State h...
Brijmohanlal Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16239/2012 03/10/2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 an...
M.L. Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
M.L. Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No.16777 3. 10.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Petitioner who is working as Head Clerk in Government College Budhar has been transferred to Government Girls College Shahdol, has filed this writ petition interalia contending that the transfer is not only to grant accommodation to respondent No.2 and as the transfer is not on administrative consideration it is illegal.2. It is pointed out by Shri Vipin Yadav that vide order dated 4.1.2012 respondent No.2 was promoted on the post of Head Clerk and was posted to Government College Raipur Karchuliyan. Respondent No.2 did not joined at promoted place in District Rewa but represented and managed to get his posting to District Rewa cancelled and not to accommodate respondent No.2 petitioner is being disturbed and, therefore, it is stated that there is no administrative necessity and transfer is illegal.3. ...
Ramsajeevan Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.16252/2012 03.10.2012 Shri Mohanlal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents, on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Claim made by the petitioners is based on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of State of M.P.versus Hariram & others [2008(3) MPLJ 517 .and an earlier judgment in the case of Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D.& others versus Budha Rao Magarde & Others [2002(1) MPLJ.385]., in the cases referred to herein, particularly in the case of Hariram (supra) in paras 10 and 12 after taking note of various judgments of this Court, so also the Supreme Court, particularly, the law laid down in the case of Budha Rao (supra).it has been held by a Bench of this Court that classification of an employee entitles to get the pay scale to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Hariram (supra) and observati...
Lalita Bai Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
lalita bai kol versus state W.P.No.16618/2012 3/10/2012 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents State on advance notice. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Collector as contained in Annexure P/2 dated 17.1.2012 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur as contained in Annexure P/ 4 dated 12.9.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Both petitioner and respondent No.5 were candidates who had applied for appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta for the Centre in question. Petitioner was selected for appointment on the post vide order dated 17.10.2009 and the candidature of respondent No.4 was rejected mainly on the ground that she is not a local resident. Respondent No.5 challenged the selection of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector. The Collector call for record, heard all concern and found that respondent No.5 is a resident of a loca...
Chanda Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11339/2012 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...
Nageshwar Dhar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.11714/2011 Nageshwar Dhar Dwivedi and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Vinot Faujdar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State. Shri S.S. Sengar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ORDER (3.10.2012) 1. The applicants have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Case No.1158/2011 arising out of Crime No.103/2011, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that marriage of applicant No.3 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 26.1.2008. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are father-in- law and mother-in-law and applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are sister-in- law and brother-in-law (nand and nandoi) of respondent N...
- ‹ Prev
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- Next ›
- Last »