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.
Kishore Samrite Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Writ Petition No.9839 o23. 11/2012 The petitioner has sought following relief:- (A).This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records like Form I submitted by the respondent No.7 before respondent No.2 and whole proceedings conducted before the respondent no.2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter for sstrict compliance of the Act, 1986 in the State of MP. (C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication being in violation of the Act, 1986 contained in Annexure P/3. (D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.7 has constructed a Mall without seeking environmental clearance from respondent no.3, so aforesaid directions may be issued. From perusal of the record it ...
Mahadev Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Mahadev Prasad Mishra versus State of MP and otheRs.23.11.2012. Shri Swapnil Ganguly for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging initiating of a departmental inquiry vide charge- sheet dated 17.10.2012 Annexure P/1, petitioner has filed this writ petition and the only ground urged for quashing the charge- sheet is that on the same set of allegation certain proceedings are pending before the Lok Ayukta, Bhopal in Crime No.149/2012 and, therefore, parallel proceedings departmentally is not permissible. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, however, submits that merely because the matter is pending before the Lok Ayukta, there is no prohibition in proceeding with the departmental inquiry. Even though various grounds are raised, records indicate that on the same set of circumstances a representation has been submitted before the competent disciplinary authority and the matter is pending consideration before the said au...
Smt. Pooja Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Smt. Pooja Pal versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.18926 23. 11.2012: Shri Vijay K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that this writ petition has been filed and the only prayer made is that an appeal pending before the Commissioner be decided at an earlier date. Considering the same it is directed that the appeal filed by petitioner pending before the Additional Commissioner since March 2012 be decided after hearing all concerned in accordance to law within 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/-...
Kamta Prasad Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Kamta Prasad Kori versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.8733 23. 11.2012: Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for respondent No.4. By the impugned order, the Collector District Satna has rejected appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II, only on the ground that against provisional select list published by the Janpad Panchayat petitioner did not raise any objection, therefore, the appeal challenging the final list is not maintainable. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds and points out that there is no requirement under law to raise objection before appellate committee in the relevant rules, the fact remains that merely because an objection was not raised on an earlier occasion it will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the final select list by resorting to reme...
M/S Mukesh Singh Patel Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.1209/2012 (M/s Mukesh Singh Patel versus State of M.P.) 23.11.2012 Shri Manot Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner in respect of various works done by him. The respondents have filed a return and submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the authorities by raising a dispute before the arbitrator under clause 29 of the agreement or to file a civil suit in respect of the claim. It is submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to issuance of notice in the present writ petition, the respondents have released the payment in respect of item No.1 to 5 mentioned in paragraph No.5.4 of the petition and therefore nothing further survives for adjudication in respect of item No.1 to 5, however the respondents have not released the amount of item No.6, i.e., boring work of hat bazar, as t...
Madhya Pradesh Pichhada Varg Tatha Alpsa Vs. the Labour Commissioner G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Madhya Pradesh Pichhada Varg Tatha Alpsankhyak Vith Evam Vikas Nigam Parisar versus Labour Commissioner & ORS.Writ Petition No.8740 23. 11.2012: Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ankit Saxena, counsel for the petitioner. This petition is pending since 2008 and dispute in this writ petition is with regard to jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner Gwalior to initiate conciliation proceedings and subsequent act of appropriate government i.e.Labour Commissioner M.P.Indore in referring to dispute for adjudication. It is the case of petitioner herein that the respondent No.3 employee was working in the Revenue District at Bhopal, the cause of action for raising the industrial dispute arose in Bhopal and as per the notification issued by the State Government Annexure P-10 the jurisdiction for entertaining the dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act and for holding conciliation proceedings is exclusively with the Assistant Labour Commissioner Bhopal and not with th...
M.P.Council for Child Welfare Vs. Indian Council for Child Welfare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.11851 / 2008 (MP Council for Child Welfare & others...Vs...Indian Council for Child Welfare , New Delhi & otheRs.23-11-2012 Shri Sanjeev Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.14165/2012 filed by the petitioners for permission to delete the name of the petitioner No.1 from the cause title. It is observed that the petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner No.1, through its secretary, whereas I.A.No.14165/2012 has been filed on behalf of one Shri V.P.Chaturvedi, who is said to be Vice President of the petitioner/Council. In the circumstances I find no reason to pass any order on I.A.No.14165/2012. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in accordance with the provisions of Bye Law V which has been quoted by the petitioner in paragraph 5.16 of the petition a life member or institution whose membership has been terminated by the Executive Committee, shall have an alternative efficacious...
Smt. Krishna Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Smt. Krishna Mehra & Anr. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19620 23. 11.2012: Shri P.N.Das, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. In spite of pressing the petition on merit, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the representation preferred by the petitioners which is pending consideration before the competent authority ,i.e, respondent no.4 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Narsingpur, may be directed to be decided by a reasoned order . Therefore, without adverting into the merits of the case ,the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to decide the representation preferred by the petitioneRs.in case it is not yet decided and pass a reasoned and cogent order within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of this order. Petitioners are directed to place copy of order along with the petition and documents filed hearwith before the competent authority. The pe...
Salma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.11866 / 2008 (Salma...Vs...State of M.P.& others.) 23-11-2012 Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/authorities are not paying the petitioner the amount as stipulated in policy decision dated 18-8-2008 in lieu of compassionate appointment on the death of the petitioner's husband, Nasiruddin, who was working as a daily wage Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter had been forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the higher authorities on 26-2-2008 but no decision has been taken by the respondent/authorities on the petitioner's representation dated 29-11-2007 till date in spite of direction being issued by the Chief Engineer on 10-3-2008 (Annexure P-5).In such circumstances, it is prayed that the petition be disposed of with the direction ...
Yogesh Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Writ Petition No.13008 o23. 11/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate for respondents. Shri Ruprah, at the outset submitted that the fiRs.grievance of the petitioner for declaration of the result of Ist year D.Ed. CouRs.has been redressed by declaring the result of the petitioner of Ist year D.Ed. Course. The second grievance of the petitioner is that in the 2nd year examination, which is commencing from 5th December, 2012, the petitioner be permitted to appear, has also been redressed by permitting the petitioner for appearing in the examination, therefore, the petition has become rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statements made by Shri Ruprah, this petition may be finally disposed of. Prayer is allowed. This petition is disposed of finally, recording the statements of Shri Ruprah. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o04. 09/201...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »