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.
Mukesh Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Mukesh Sahu versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 23.11.2012. Shri Paritosh Trivedi for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents, on advance notice. Considering the fact that representation filed by the petitioner Annexure P/4 is still pending before the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Mandla, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, particularly with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Shri Kumar Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1....W.A.No.1239 of 12 Shrikumar Jharia State of M.P.& otheRs.23.11.2012 Shri R.K.Patel, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.10.2012 in W.P.No.16725 of 2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against the rejection of the representation, against the transfer order was dismissed. Earlier also the appellant had filed another W.P.bearing No.11675/2012 which was finally disposed of on 8.8.2012 permitting the appellant to file a representation against the transfer order dated 11.7.2012. It appears that the representation was filed but it was dismissed by the competent authority. This second petition was filed assailing the aforesaid rejection of the representation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the transfer order was against the policy and was on malafide ground as it was issued at the behest of respondent No.4, who is the present President of M.P.Assistant Vete...
R.K.Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.19147/2012 23.11.2012 : Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the office of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Mandla and vide order dated 11.7.2012 Annexure P/2 petitioner was transferred from Mandla to the neighboring District Dindori. Challenging the order of transfer mainly on the ground of violation of transfer policy in as much as petitioner is said to have been transferred when he was Office bearer of registered Union and contending that clause 9.23 of the transfer policy gives protection to such category of employees a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P.No.13812/2012 and on 3.9.2012 a Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing for considering and deciding the representation of the petitioner. Representation having been rejected vide order dated 15.10.2012, petitioner is again before this Court. The on...
Ramniwas Singh Vs. Chhotelal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.18182/2012 (Ramnivas Singh and others versus Chhotelal Singh and otheRs.23.11.2012 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.10.12 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, class-1, Rewa rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under order 7 rule 14 of the C.P.C.read with section 151 of the C.P.C.seeking to bring certain additional documents on record. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has not been closed and is not listed for hearing arguments in the second half. Having perused the impugned order it is apparent that the petitioners are seeking to bring on record the certified copy of the order passed in the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C.in the year 2007 and 2008 in respect of which the petitioners had made reference and pleadings in their submissions before the court below and have also ...
Ricki Raj Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1229/2012 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.16412/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as he was busy in another court he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.16412/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.16412/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Lalit Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Lalit Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.23.11.2012. Shri Shekhar Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi for respondent No.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he may be granted permission to inspect his answer-sheets and verify as to whether the valuation has been done properly. For the said purpose issuance of a mandamus is not necessary as has been held by the Supreme Court in various cases, which contemplates that a candidate has a right to seek information under the Right to Information Act and the answer- sheets can be called over and inspected under the said provision. In view of the fact that petitioner can always call for the answer-sheets and inspect it under the Right to Information Act, granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed for calling of the answer-sheets under the Right to Information Act, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ...
Smt. Vachchhala Meshram Vs. Ajay Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 Conc. No.1847/2012 23/11/2012 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 2.3.2012 in W.P.No.13585/2011 has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt against the not applicant who is Tehsildar, Waraseoni, District Balaghat. Records indicate that certain proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount as arrears of land revenue and matter is pending before the not applicant. In the writ petition the grievance of the petitioner was that certain objections raised by the petitioner are not being considered. Considering the same and after taking note of certain principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New Laxmi Oil Mills versus Bank of India and others - 1998(1) JLJ 154.the writ petition was disposed of directing the Tahsildar to consider and decide the objection of the petitioner in the ligh...
Sanjay Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
sanjay patel versus State 1 W.P.No.19682/2012 23/11/2012 Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Constable in the 8th Batalian, SAF, Chhindwara. Vide order dated 30.4.2012 Annexure P/2 punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Against the order of punishment dated 30.4.2012, petitioner preferred an appeal Annexure P/3 which was received by the appellate authority on 4.11.2012. The appeal has been rejected by the competent appellate authority only on the ground that as per statutory rules appeal could be filed within the stipulated time. On the ground that there is a delay of more than 10 to 15 days, appeal has been rejected. The manner in which the appeal is considered and rejected by the competent appellate authority and reasons given therein cannot be appreciated by this Court. Time and again in thousands of cases which ha...
Rambagas Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Rambagas Lodhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19679 23. 11.2012: Shri R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that the appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision under the M.P.Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyma, 1993 and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.of statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Collector within a period of one month from today, the Collector shall decide the appeal in accordance to law within a period of one month thereof after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Jitendra Kumar Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Jitendra Kumar Gautam versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19662 23. 11.2012: Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has been selected and empaneled for appointment as Gram Rojgar Sahayak, name of petitioner appears in select list Annexure P-1. It seems that initially when appointments on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak were being made one Smt. Ragini Sharma challenged the selection process by approaching this Court in W.P.No.8101/2012. During the pendency of the said writ petition certain development took place, which resulted in appointment of present petitioner, due to aforesaid development the writ petition W.P.No.8101/2012(s) filed by Smt. Ragini Sharma has been dismissed by this Court on 6.11.2012. However, on the ground that W.P.No.8101/2012 is still pending, it seems that further proceedings for appointment is being stayed only because the writ petition W.P.NO.8101/2012 was pending and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. The order Annexu...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »