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.
Balkrishna Dhunde Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
balkrishna dhunde versus state 1 W.P.No.19555/2012 23/11/2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is a Pashu Paricharak and is posted in Tahsil Pandhurna, District Chhindwara. Vide order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Chal Veerujalay, Tamiya, District Chhindwara. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground that the transfer amounts to frequent transfer in as much as vide order dated 29.8.2012 petitioner was posted in Rampur and vide order dated 25.9.2011 it was amended and petitioner was transferred in Block Pandurna and not he is being again shifted. It is stated that petitioner is a Class IV employee and this transfer amounts to frequent transfer. Transfer order is passed on 13.7.2012 and representation of the petitioner is filed after his relieving vide Annexure P/4 dated 29.9.2012. Record indicates that petitioner was relieved vide Annexure P/3 on 25.9...
Smt.Neeta Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Smt. Neeta Dwivedi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19596 23. 11.2012: Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed under the scheme commonly known as Operation Black Board. After the appointment, the services of the petitioner were terminated. This has led to various litigations and finally the impugned orders were set aside,persons like petitioner were reinstated. Likewise, the petitioner was also reinstated in service. This was done pursuance to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Arun Tiwari and others versus Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sang and Others [1998(2) SCC 332].The termination of the persons like petitioner was found illegal by the Apex Court. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner is reinstated n service, yet the benefit of regular pay scale has not been gr...
Ghanshyam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Ghansyam versus State 1 W.P.No.2650/2011 23/11/2012 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Inter alia contending that the petitioner is not being granted appointment as a Shiksha Karmi Grade II and after his termination inspite of oral assurance given for appointment, no action is taken, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that petitioner was appointed as a Contract Teacher for a period of one year. Period of contract came to an end on 30th April, 1998 and thereafter petitioner has not been appointed. Based on this contract appointment for a period of 30th April, 98, it was the case of the petitioner that he was assured as and when appointment takes place, his case shall be considered. not no indulgence can be made into the matter for the simple reason that after the year 1998 in accordance to the directions issued by the Supreme Court statutory rules have been framed. not appoint...
Kusum Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1315/2012 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.17888/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to ailment 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 19.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.17888/12 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.17888/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Kamlesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1316/2012 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.17886/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to ailment 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 19.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.17886/12 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.17886/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Daya Shankar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
W.P.No.19153/2012 23.11.2012 : Shri Nityanand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a daily wages employee in the Public Works Department since 1986 and regularization is claimed on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Shivmurat Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Shivmurat Prasad Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19633 23. 11.2012: Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner is pending before the Labour Court Sidhi since 2007, for the present without entering into controveRs.on merits the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Sidhi is directed to decide the dispute in question after hearing all concerned in accordance to law 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/-...
Mohd.Saleem and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1377 OF 199.Mohd. Salim & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.D.Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2/8/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No.106/1991, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced for two years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, three months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.11.1990 at about ...
Mohd.irshad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
W.P.No.19477/2012 (Mohd. Irshad & anot versus State of M.P.& ors.) 22.11.2012 Heard Shri Atul Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus alleging wrongful confinement of his wife by the police and the respondent No.3. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners themselves alongwith the petition, it is clear that there is no document on record to indicate that the petitioner No.1 has married the corpus. It is stated that the police have registered a case against the petitioner no.1 under section 363,366 and 376 of the I.P.C.on the ground that the corpus is minot and had taken the petitioner No.1 into custody and in the meanwhile given the corpus to the father respondent No.3. It is also clear that the matter is pending investigation and enquiry. In the circumstances, the present case cannot be said to be a case of wrongful confinement warranting i...
A.K. Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
1....W.P.No.5139 o22. 11.2012 Shri Gopal Jaiswal, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vinot Sisodia, Counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Shri Quasim Ali, Counsel for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the out set submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition because the respondents are considering the grievances of the petitioneRs.however, with liberty to the petitioners to reagitate the matter in case the grievances are not redressed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the aforesaid prayer, hence, it is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdraw with liberty as prayed. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »