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.
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18771 23. 11.2012: Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the claim made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is still to be considered and decided by the competent authority, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the claim of petitioner in accordance to policies and circular applicable in the respondent's establishment within a period of three months 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 ss/-...
Pooran Lal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Pooranlal Ahirwar versus State of Madhya Pradesh & OtheRs.23.11.2012. Shri Mohammed Ali for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his suspension ordered by the competent authority. Challenge to the order of suspension is made on two counts. The fiRs.ground is that petitioner has been suspended vide order-dated 30.9.2010 Annexure P/6 and a charge-sheet has not been issued to him within 45 days and, therefore, the suspension is illegal. The second ground canvassed is that alongwith the petitioner one Pradeep Tiwari, a peon, was also suspended, but in the case of Pradeep Tiwari the suspension has been revoked, but similar benefit is denied to the petitioner. Records indicate that petitioner is working as a Teacher in the Government Senior Basic School, Tikamgarh. It is the case of the petitioner that a complaint Annexure P/1 was made against Pradeep Tiwari and in the complaint the Principal by making ce...
Ram Kishore Gupta Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1292/2012 (R.K.Gupta versus M.P.State Information Commission and otheRs.23.11.2012 Heard Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel with Shri M.K.Rajak, counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.12409/12 for condonation of delay. The petitioner has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of W.P.No.13219/2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the petition was dismissed by this court in the month of March, 2012 but the petitioner came to knot about the dismissal of the petition for the fiRs.time in the month of September, 2012 and thereafter he has filed an application for restoration of the petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. From a perusal of the order sheets of the writ petition it is apparent that the said writ petition, for the fiRs.time came up for hearing before this court on 14.11.2008 on which date it was dismissed for want of prosecution as nobod...
Motilal Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 W.P. No. 14946/2008 23.11.2012 Shri S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for respondents. Heard. Vide Notice No. SECL/Sr.P.O/KGIA/127 dated 26.5.2008 petitioner, Explosive Carrier was informed that on the basis of date of birth 4/12/48 recorded in his service record he shall stand retired w.e.f. 31.12.2008. Aggrieved whereby, petitioner filed this petition on 10.12.2008, seeking direction to respondents to treat his date of birth as 17.9.1950 and correct the service record accordingly. Evident it is from record that, initially appointed on 4.12.1977 as General Mazdoor, petitioner's age in absence of any School Certificate was recorded as 29 years in service register. Petitioner acknowledged the same. In form B register the date of birth was accordingly recorded as 4.12.1948. In the Provident Fund nomination form filled in May 1998, petitioner declared his date of birth ...
Halki Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 W.P.No.17238/2012 Halki Bai & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.11.2012 Shri Anil Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the petitioneRs.I.A No13826/2012 for taking documents on record is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Documents be taken on record and consolidated with the original petition. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of the notices dated 1.10.2012 seeking to remove the petitioners from the place occupied by them. It is alleged that the petitioners are regular lease holders of the land and cannot be removed by treating them to be encroacheRs.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.it is observed that the present petition has been filed only against the impugned notices wherein the respondent authorities have themselves attached a note asking the concerned person to produce documents, if any, relating to title, etc., in room no.31 and, therefore, it is apparent that the autho...
Chokhe and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1705/1997 Chokhe & one another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellants : Shri Vinit Mishra, Advocate. Counsel for the resp./State : Shri Swapnil Gangully, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (23.11.2012) The appellants have been convicted under Sections 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years respectively by the impugned judgment dated 30 t h July, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No.275/1995 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.2. The prosecution case is that on 4.9.1995, the appellants as well as four accused persons assaulted the victim Tulsiram by lathi and abused him at public place. The police after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against six accused persons for offences under Sections 307, 324, 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 Cr.A. No.1705/1997 The t...
Santosh Kumar Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1 W.P. No. 2381/2010 23.11.2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Rai, learned Counsel for State of Madhya Pradesh. Heard. Father of the petitioner, Assistant Teacher in School Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, died in harness on 8.2.2003. Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate ground in lieu thereof. His application was considered and by order dated 21.10.2003, was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade III. Still dissatisfied, petitioner seeks direction to respondents to appoint the petitioner on a regular post. Petitioner relies upon a circular dated 17.2.2004 and an order passed in W.P. No. 1248/2007 (S) on 31.1.2007. So far as order in W.P. No. 1248/2007 (S) is concerned, no decision has been rendered that a compassionate appointment should be on a regular post only. The same cannot, therefore, be treated a prece...
Rashid Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.A.No.1231/2012 23.11.2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.09.2012 in W.P.No.15505/2012 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant challenged the order dated 21.08.2012 Annexure P-2 by which the charge of appellant was handed over to respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that not the appellant is holding only additional charge and no original charge is with the appellant and the respondents may be directed to give the charge to the appellant for Halka No.45. It appears that at present appellant is holding additional charge and the charge which was assigned to the appellant in respect of Halka No.45 is assigned to respondent No.5 Sanjay Jain. In view of aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, if the appellant is having any grievance he may appro...
Ganesh Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
ganesh prasad versus State 1 W.P.No.19678/2012 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 Revenue Inspector and vide order dated 15.7.2012 he has been transferred from Damoh to Sagar. Challenging the transfer order he approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.10930/2012 and in the said writ petition only two grounds were canvassed, they were that the petitioner is a District Cadre employee and therefore, he cannot be transferred from one District to another which will adversely effect his seniority and the other ground was that he could not be relieved as he is engaged in the work of Pashu Sangarna and Krishi Sangarna. Both these grounds were considered and this Court on 30.7.2012 vide Annexure P/4 found that on those grounds interference cannot be made. Accordingly, refusing to interfere in the matter directing the petitioner to take recouRs.to the d...
Bhura Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1564 OF 199.Bhura. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 23rd day of November, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11/9/1996 passed by the Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Chhattarpur in Special Case No.141/1994, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short NDPS Act.) and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »