Madhya Pradesh Court November 2012 Judgments
Ganesh Prasad Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.20051 / 2012 (Ganesh Prasad Agrawal ..Vs.State of M.P.& otheRs.30-11-2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned panel lawyer, for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by him before the authorities as well as on the application filed by him for grant of protection. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a fiRs.information report has already been lodged by the petitioner against certain accused persons which has been registered at Police Station Seoni, vide Crime No.178/12, for offences under Sections 294, 506-B/ 34 and 427 of the IPC but no action thereon has been taken by the police authorities till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent/authorities be directed to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Kaushik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.19270/20130. 11.2012 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sujeet Kumar Nigam Vs. Ramnarayan Saket
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Misc.Cr.C.No.10029/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate ,for the applicant. Shri Ranjeet , Adv.for the respondent No.1. Shri Santosh Yadav, P.L.For State. Heard on the point of admission. Petition seems to be arguable hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A.No.17367/12 an application for stay of further proceedings in Special Case No.30/11 pending in the Court of Special Judge Sidhi. Since there is mixed question of law and fact arises in the criminal case which is pending before Special Judge, the aforesaid IA is allowed and further proceedings in Special Case No.30/11 pending in the Court of Special Judge Sidhi is hereby stayed till next date of hearing. List for final hearing in the fiRs.week of January 2013. C c as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.18987/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Rajesh Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter relates to service matter and is to be listed before some other bench according to the roster. Office to verify and list the same as early as possible before the appropriate bench. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks Writ Petition No.19161/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Rajesh Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter relates to service matter and is to be listed before some other bench according to the roster. Office to verify and list the same as early as possible before the appropriate bench. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks Writ Petition No.19168/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Rajesh Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter relates to service matter and is to be listed before some other bench according to the roster. Office to verify and list the same as early as possible before the appropriate bench. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Darshan Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WritPetitionNo.19088/2012 30/11/2012 Shri Vinot Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 ment...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Mehar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19229/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ 261 .and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT 221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certain writ petitions. It is contended that...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WritPetitionNo.19085/2012 30/11/2012 Shri Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Singh Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17546/20130. 11.2012 Shri V.P.Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Krishn Satna Vs. the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.20052/2012 30.11.2012. Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned GA for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel is directed to correct the date of impugned order in fiRs.para of the petition, as such in place 17.8.2012 the date 16.11.2012 is to be mentioned. The same is directed to be corrected within seven days. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.6/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).Nagod in Panji No.87/12 whereby the fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended with some consequential direction to forfeit the security amount and also imposed the penalties with a direction to recover the same. In the couRs.of the argument on admission, in view of the provision of Clause 12 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2009, which came into force f...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Das Bari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19137/2012 30.11.2012. Shri Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned GA for the respondents No.1 to 5 and 7. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent No.3 and 4 to make a fair and strict inquiry on the subject matter of his application with a further prayer to direct such authorities to take action against the respondent No.8 to 10 and demolish the alleged construction and wall erected by such respondent No.8 to 10 around the tree of Peepal and the house of the petitioner. In the couRs.of the argument on admission, on asking the petitioneRs.counsel that how the disputed factual issues could be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India which could not be adjudicated unless the evidence is recorded in the matter either by the Civil Court or concerning M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »