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.
Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
1....W.A.No.1237 of 12 Ashok Kumar Mishra State of M.P.& otheRs.23.11.2012 Shri S.P.Mishra, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.8.2012 passed in W.P.No.12845 of 2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer from Community Health Center, Mouganj to Community Health Center, Java in the same district Rewa dated 30.7.2012 was dismissed. Though, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case but inspite of this he was transferred. The learned Single Judge without considering this aspect has wrongly dismissed the writ petition. It is also submitted by Shri Mishra that the appellant is suffering from heart ailment and has been posted at a distant place which is an interior place where appellant cannot get any medical help but the earlier place Mouganj is on National Highway and in case of emergency, he can rush to Rew...
Smt. Kamlesh Arora Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.19636/2012 (Smt. Kamlesh Arora and others versus State of MP and another) 23.11.2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.who are Assistant Teachers have filed this petition claiming the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of regular appointment 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 date of regular appointment shall be given 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 w...
Sanjeev Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Sanjeev Kumar Khare and others versus State of MP and otheRs.23.11.2012. Shri Brahmanand Pandey for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents. Interalia contending that award passed by Labour Court Sagar in various cases as indicated in Annexures P/1-A, P/1-B, P/1-C and P/1-D, has not been complied with, the four petitioners herein have filed this writ petition. On notices being issued, respondents have filed return and have brought on record orders Annexures R/1, R/2 and R/3, by which it is indicated that the awards passed has been complied with and the employees have been granted the benefits in pursuance to the award. Apart from the fact that from the return filed by the respondents it is seen that the award has been complied with, in case the award passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act has not been complied with, the petitioners have the remedy of getting the award executed and for the said purpose approaching a writ cou...
Mukesh Kumar Malviya Vs. Smt. Lata Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1214/2012 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Deepak Pendarkar, learned counsel for applicant on the question of admission and condonation of delay. This is an application for restoration of W.P.No.2003/12 dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as he was out of station he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he came to knot about the order of dismissal at a later stage and as such the delay has occurred. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the application for restoration as well as the application for restoration deserve to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant. Looking to the facts that the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the applications for restoration as well as for condonation of delay are al...
Abdul Rajjak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.18700/2012 (Abdul Rajjak versus State of M.P.& ors.) 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, 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 the police authorities on the compliant filed by the petitioner in the incident of death of his daughter. It is submitted that inspite of specific complaint and allegations having been made, the police authorities are not taking any action against respondent Nos.5 to 7. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Harda to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly pr...
Shri Sai College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.19412/2012 Shri Sai College National Council for Teacher Education & others 23.11.2012 Shri J.K.Pillai, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.14026/2012 (Supersonic Education Society versus National Council for Technical Education & otheRs.decided on 31.8.2012 and this matter may also be disposed of in terms the directions issued in W.P.No.14026/2012. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.06.2012 issued by the NCTE, WRC rejecting the application of the petitioner institution for grant of permission/recognition for running D.El.Ed. CouRs.2012-13 with a further writ of mandamus directing the respondent NCTE to process the D.El.Ed. application of the petitioner college granting approval for the ac...
Manoj Tiwari Vs. Smt.Anju Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (First Appeal No.244/2010) Manoj Tiwari Vs. Smt. Anju Tiwari PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri U.K. Shukla, Advocate Counsel for Respondent Shri Amit Garg, Advocate J U D G M E N T (23/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Challenge in this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act of 1955) is to the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2010 passed by First Judge of the First Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 25 A/2009; whereby petition preferred by respondent under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for divorce has been allowed.2. Marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 22.4.2008. After marriage respondent wife started living with the appellant husband at Bhind. After stayi...
Sangita Pandey (Sharma) Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Writ Petition No.14280 o23. 11/2012 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Government Advocate for the respondents-State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent no.2 may be directed to decide the representation Annexure P/4, expeditiously. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents-State. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with the following directions:- (1) That , the petitioner to submit a copy of this petition, order passed today along with a fresh representation to respondent no.2 within a period of three weeks' from today. (2) If such a representation is filed, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the representation expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of 3 weeks' from the date of receipt of the representation. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE ...
Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Rajendra Prasad Mishra versus State of MP and others 23.11.2012. Shri Rajesh Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Guruji in Education Guarantee Centre and his service has been terminated by the District Project Coordinator and challenging the same petitioner has filed this writ petition. Against the order terminating the service of the petitioner, statutory remedy of appeal under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 is available and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
National B.Ed. College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Writ Petition No.17916 o23. 11/2012 Shri V.Bhide, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions in the matter. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o04. 09/2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Agrawal, Shri Anuj Agrawal, and Kumari Chhoti Bai, Advocates for the appellant in various matteRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited. At the request of the appellant hearing of the appeal is adjourned for 20th September, 2012. Be listed for hearing along with analogous matter on the aforesaid date. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »