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.
Summer Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 W.P.Nos.19621/2012 (s) 26/11/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents State Government. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 4/04/09 and 25/03/09 by which the State Govt. has decided to close down the Library and Community Centres running in various villages. Questions involved in these writ petitions and tenability of similar action has already been considered and decided by this Court by a common order passed in W.P.No.590/2011(s).W.P.14312/2011(s).W.P.12477/2009 (s) W.P.17/2010 (s) and W.P.No.17445/2010 (s) on 15.9.2011. After considering similar prayer, the following directions were issued by this Court :- "Accordingly, taking note of the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals as indicated hereinabove, all these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions:- Respondents are directed to take steps for continuing the pe...
Shyam Sundar Mishra Vs. Jagdish Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Misc. Appeal No.4183/2007) Shyam Sunder Mishra and another Vs. Jagdish Pandey PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for appellants Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate O R D E R (26/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the Act of 1890) is directed against the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by First Additional District Judge, Katni; whereby, an application preferred by the appellants under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act of 1890 for custody of Siddharth has been rejected.2. Appellants are paternal grandfather and father of Siddharth who lives with respondent, the maternal grandfather. He is borne out of wedlock of appellant No. 2 and Sunita. Sunita died on 26.1.2004 under suspicious circumstan...
Anurag Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19731/2012 (Anurag Choubey versus State of MP and otheRs.26.11.2012 Heard Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute anybody 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 authority to do so, a ...
Mustakeem Khan Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Betul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.14743/2012 (Mustakeem Khan versus Nagar Palika Parishad Betul and otheRs.26.11.2012 Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/authorities pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2010 are not proceeding further to remove the petitioner's Gumti by treating it to be an encroachment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similar petition i.e.W.P.No.942/2011 has been disposed of by this court with a direction to the authority to give opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that the Municipal Council, Betul is proposing to widen the road and in the process has issued notice to the petitioner and others to remove the Gumti and encroachment. In the circumstance, specifically keeping the concept of parity in mind as it is observed that the petitioner appears to have been allott...
Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
vijay kumar dubey versus state 1 W.P.No.19803/2012 26/11/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the Education Guarantee Scheme. Subsequently, the post was redesignated as Guruji.Order Annexure P-1 is the appointment order of the petitioneRs.It is seen from the records that a decision was taken by the State Govt. to appoint Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. and it was also decided to conduct an examination for appointment of the Shala Shikshak Grade-III amongst the Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and conditions of contract) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 2005).The rules stipulated a condition to the effect that a candidate to be entitled for appointment and qualifyi...
Smt. Phool Kumari Bai Singare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19738/2012 (Smt. Phool Kumar Bai Singare versus State of MP and another) 26.11.2012 Heard Shri Ashok Tiwari, 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 praying for a direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct an election of the Manjhi Matashya Udhog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Haranbhata, Village Pipariya Rajguru, Tahsil Amarwada , District Chhindwara as the authority is not doing so inspite of the fact that the term of the society is over since 14.10.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that authority inspite of repeated representations has not conducted the election as a result of which the society is still being managed by the Officer in charge which is not permissible under the law. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that in case the petitioner approaches the respondents/authorities...
Sant Ram Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Sant Ram Gupta versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19835 26. 11.2012: Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, leanred Panel Lawyer for the State. Considering the fact that petitioner has submitted a representation seeking certain document for justification or giving reply to show-cause notice issued to petitioner, the competent authority, namely respondent No.2 is directed to take note of representation of petitioner, provide documents as prayed for or pass appropriate orders in the same in accordance to law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Bhujbal Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19685/2012 (Bhujbal Singh Thakur versus State of MP and another) 26.11.2012 Heard Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is that the respondent No.3 be directed to consider and decide the election dispute filed by the petitioner which is registered as Case No.64-02/2007-08 and is pending since 2007-08. It is submitted that the fresh elections are due in the month of December, 2012 and the matter is pending before the respondent No.3 for last five years and no decision thereon has been taken till date although the respondents have been served and they has also filed a reply. In view of the aforesaid the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ authorities to look into the matter and decide the same as early as possible, preferably before declaration of ensuing fresh election, in accordance with law, after h...
Raghu Nanda Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Raghu Nandan Prasad versus Food Corporation of India & ORS.Writ Petition No.19844 26. 11.2012: Smt. Ranno Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of punishment Annexure P-9 dated 26.10.2012 by which a sum of Rs.1,61,657/- is proposed to be recovered from the petitioner on equal 16 installments. Records indicate that against the order of punishment petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the competent authority vide Annexure P-10 and therefore, prays for interference into the matter. At this stage when appeal is pending for consideration before the competent authority, it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order before the competent authority, the said authority shall decide the appeal in accordance to law within the statutory period prescribed and till the appeal is not decided representation in pursuance to impugned punishment shall be kept in abeyance. With the aforesaid the petit...
Sharaswati Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19570/2012 (Sharaswati Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh versus State of MP and another) 26.11.2012 Heard Shri Vinot Patel, 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 respondent No.2 /the Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa to decide the appeal No.534/Appeal/2011-12, pending before him which has been filed by the respondent No.5, at an early date. It is however observed that though the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for vacating stay or early hearing before the Commissioner but without doing so he has directly approached this court by filing the present petition which is not permissible in law. In the circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the present petition which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Commissioner in the pending appeal. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the au...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »