Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Ramsunder Pyasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19395/2012 (Ramsunder Pyasi versus State of MP and otheRs.26.11.2012 Heard Shri Amit Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.6 is undertaking illegal blasting and mining on the land adjacent to the petitioner's land which is endangering the life of the petitioner and causing irreparable damage to the petitioner's crop and property as well as pollution to the environment. It is submitted that inspite of repeated representations the respondents are not taking any action in the matter. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/7 before the Collector shall be looked into by the authority, expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the ...
Rajkumari Yadav Vs. Arvind Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.4495/2010 26.11.2012 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadikari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent Nos.7 and 8. In the available scenario of the matter the respondent Nos.2 to 6 being respondents before the trial court alongwith the petitioner in the impugned election petition filed by the respondent No.1 and none of them has challenged the impugned order, hence their presence are not required to adjudicate this petition, hence notices against such respondents are hereby dispensed with, if the same have not been served. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he does not want to file the return in the matter. His submission is taken on record. At the request of the counsel for respondent No.1 the case is adjourned with a direction to place the same on 11.12.2012, as prayed. The interim order passed earlier is hereby continued. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Mulayam Singh Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.14729/2012 (Mulayam Singh Kourav versus State of MP and otheRs.26.11.2012 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is that the respondent/Sub Divisional Officer, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's complaint under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 which he has filed against the respondents No.7 to 9 i.e.the Sarpanch, Up Sarpanch and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Mohpani, Janpad Panchayat Chichli District Narsinghpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance on the complaint has been taken by the S.D.O.but the same has not been decided till date and is pending since 2010. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the proceedings under section 40 of the Adhiniyam shall be considered and decided by...
Dr. Sunita Alawa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
dr. sunita alawa & ORS.versus state 1 W.P.No.10038/2012 26/11/2012 Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioners have filed this writ petition and the grievance of the petitioners are that after completing the MBBS CouRs.and after conclusion of the internship, they are not being issued with regular posting orders and therefore, they have approached this Court. An alternate prayer made is that they may be granted not exempting them from undergoing rural posting and if required the bond executed by them in favour of the State Government may be get executed or enforced. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that all the petitioners herein appeared in the premedical test conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh and at the time of appearing in the examination which was conducted in accordance to the statutory rules Annexure R/1, they undertook to serve in a r...
Naresh Kumar Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
naresh kumar sen versus state 1 W.P.No.15912/2012 26/11/2012 Shri V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner has been suspended due to his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.45/2002 for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of IPC. It is a case of the petitioner that vide Circular dated 6.11.2002 the State Government has taken a decision to review the cases of employees who have been under suspension for a long period due to involvement in criminal cases. Placing reliance on the benefit granted to a similarly situated person namely Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, petitioner has filed this writ petition and it is stated as petitioner has remained under suspension for more than 10 yeaRs.therefore, in view of Circular dated 6.11.2002 suspension be revoked. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of mandate of Circular dated 6.11.2002, the competent authority is dire...
Raj Kumar Sahu Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Head Office Star Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19466/2012 (R.K.Sahu versus Chairman-cum- Managing Director and otheRs.26.11.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Pathak, 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 respondents to declare his result and inform him about the marks obtained by him as well as grant him posting. It is submitted that the petitioner is a blind person and had been permitted to participate in the examination for Hindi Officer in the Bank but the respondents/authorities have not informed about the marks obtained by him or his result. It is observed that the petitioner has directly approached this court by filing the present petition which is not permissible in law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from ...
Suman Bagre Vs. Smt. Hira Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 W.P.No.18414 o26. 11.2012 Shri Sandeep Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for the respondents No.2 to 4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 4.9.12 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Case No.781/A/27/11-12 affirming the order dated 6.3.12 passed by the SDO Padhurna in Revenue Appeal No.28/A/27/10-11 whereby allowing the appeal of respondent No.1, the order dated 30.6.11 passed by the Tehsildar Padhurna in Revenue Case No.110-/A/27/10-11 staying the proceedings of such case filed by the petitioner under section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959 ( in short the Code) has been set aside and Tehsildar was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with the procedure. After taking me through the record and the papers placed on the record, the petitioner's counsel prayed to admit and allow this petition. Having ...
Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.18248/12. 26.11.2012 Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for State-respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226/27 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to carry out the demarcation proceedings of the petitioners land described in the petition on his application which is pending before the authorities. In the couRs.of arguments I have seen that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition the representation of the petitioners (Annexure- P-8).is still pending before the respondent no.2 and in such premises, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the a...
Mr.Rahul Gajbhiye Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrstructure Develop ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19267/2012 (Rahul Gajbhiye versus M.P.Housing Infrastructure Dev. Board & ors.) 26.11.2012 Heard Shri ENos.George Carlo, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has field this petition being aggrieved by communication issued to the petitioner dated 12.06.2012, wherein he has been intimated that the revised value of the house allotted to him by the respondents would be Rs.31,28,467/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid increase in the value of the house allotted to the petitioner is not in accordance with law as the authorities have done so only on account of the collector guidelines issued for the year 2011-12, which were notified for the purpose of levying stamp duty and registration charges, whereas the authorities themselves have stated that the actual price of the house is Rs.14.35 lacs. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the increase in the price of the house is arbitrary, unre...
Shakun Bai Vs. Neem
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.18641/12. 26.11.2012 Shri Mohan Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State- respondents no.1 to 3. Subject to admission of this petition the respondent no.4 is yet to be noticed. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to pay her compensation with all benefits of rehabilitation Scheme in lieu of acquisition of her land. In the couRs.of arguments I have found that her representation Annexure-P-5 is still pending for adjudication in the Office of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and in such premises, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents to consider and decide the afores...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »