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.
Saytadeo Shamra Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.5124 / 2009 (Satyadeo Sharma ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.21-11-2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the respondents be directed to honour and reward the petitioner for his bravery in risking his life to save life of the driver of Truck not MP21-7430 which fell into the Mahanadi river near Chandiya in the night of 7-8-2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his act of bravery should have been acknowledged by the respondents with a view to encourage him and otheRs.therefore, the respondent/authorities of the State be directed to honour and reward him. The respondents have filed a return and have brought on record the provisions of the M.P.Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samiti Rules, 2003. It is stated that there is no provision for granting any reward under the rules and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner being misconceive...
Smt. Sandhya Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 W.P.No.17438/2012 Smt.Sandhya Tiwari State of M.P.& others 21.11.2012 Shri M.S.Bhatti, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 & 3. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.4. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) Call for the entire record from the records for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) to direct the respondent No.3 to declare the result of the petitioner of B.Ed. Examination conducted by respondent No.3 in the year 2008-2009 within 10 days so that petitioner may participate in the appointment process for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-3. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner alongwith cost of the petition. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner had to appear in the B.Ed. Examination for the academic session 2008. Though petitioner had appeared in the examination later o...
Dewan Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.59/2011 Dewan Singh Maravi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Ms. Neena Khera, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21st day of November, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T. No.19/10, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for three years R.I. with fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months S.I. was also directed. 2 The prosecutions case in short is th...
Uday Prakash Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
uday prakash mishra versus state W.P.No.17200/2012 21-11-2012 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner's father Late Shri K.B.Mishra was working as Assistant Engineer and died in harness. As the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has not yet been decided, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the fact that the claim of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the respondents, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance to policies and circulars applicable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Executive Engineer Madhya Pradesh Grah Nirman Mandal Vs. Smt. Rupali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 F.A.600/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA F.A.No.600/2012 .........Appellant: Executive Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Grah Nirman Mandal, Project Division, Chhindwara,Through Assistant Engineer, M.P.Grah Nirman Mandal Project, Sub- Division, Seoni District Seoni, M.P.Versus .......Respondents:1. Smt. Rupali, W/o Shri Sanjay Tawri, R/o Kachahri Chowk, Seoni, District Seoni.2. Land Acquisition Officer, for Collector (Land Acquisition) Seoni, District Seoni, M.P.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Respondents no.1 by - Shri Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Respondent no.2 by - Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (21/11/2012) 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed on behalf of the appellant- Executive Engineer, Madhya Pra...
Krishna Kumar Sethi Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
(1) M.A. No.1196/2003 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.1196 / 2003 Appellant Shri Krishna Kumar Sethi, S/o. Shri Bholaram, R/o. Ashoka Garden, 292-B, Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Respondent: Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, CST Mumbai _______________________________________________________ Ku. Surabhi Ahirkar, Advocate for appellant. Shri N.S. Ruprah, Advocate for respondent. _______________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 21st day of November, 2012) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.03.2003 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal Bench in Case No.166/2000 dismissing the claim application of appellant, this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act, 1987 has been filed.2. In brief the case of appellant is that he booked 5 consignments of lemon in 35 bags weighing 516 Kg from Bhopal to Gorakhpur vide P.W. Bill No.526529, 526530 and ...
Devnandan Charmakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Devnandan Charmakar versus State of MP and two otheRs.21.11.2012. Shri D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State. This petition was filed on 10.12.2007, it is yet to be admitted. Today it is listed for admission. Challenging the order-dated 24.1.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment in accordance to certain directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.8977/2003, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on temporary basis vide order-dated 14.9.1992. He worked for about 4 months and thereafter his service was terminated. On the ground that petitioners services have been terminated without giving any reason and without grant of opportunity of hearing, he challenged the termination by filing an application before the State Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The said case was registered as O.A.No.1371/1994 and after winding up of the ...
Alok Pratap Singh Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 W.P.No.2802/2004 21.11.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Sr.Advocate for petitioner. Shri Shekhar Sharma, Cousnel for Union of India. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for State of M.P.Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shikha Tandon and Shri Kunal Thakre, for respondent No.4. It is stated by Shri Nagrath that the Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & others versus Union of India & others 2012 AIR SCW 455.on 9.8.2012 has issued directions in Para 35(12) of the order in respect of disposal of the toxic materials/waste, so this matter may be heard in respect of all other issues. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for State submits that in respect of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan (supra).State has filed an application seeking review of the order drawing attention of the Apex Court in respect of the orders passed by the Apex Court in another SLP (Civil) No.9874/2012 and not the Apex Court has clubbed both mat...
Ramlal Kol Vs. the Secretary, M.P.P.K.V.V.Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
ramlal kol versus secretary mpkvv W.P.No.19540/2012 21-11-2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging a show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the competent appellate authority proposing to enhance the punishment granted by the disciplinary authority, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition to point out that once a punishment has been imposed and petitioner has undergone the punishment, no further enquiry can be conducted, but the fact remains that by exercising powers of revision the competent authority has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. As only a show cause notice has been issued and a final decision into the matter is yet to be taken and at this preliminary stage petitioner has rushed to this Court. Accordingly fining no case for interference at this preliminary stage, this petition is disposed of granting ...
Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Radhey Shyam Sharma versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.21.11.2012. Shri Sidharth Gulati for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Praveen Verma for respondent No.3. Challenging an order-dated 9.8.2012 passed by respondent No.2 posting respondent No.3 A.B.Sahu as Sub Divisional Officer, PWD Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Sub Engineer and respondent No.3 is substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer (SDO).While the petitioner was posted as Sub Engineer in Sub Division Bijawar, temporary charge of SDO was granted to him. While the petitioner was so working, vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/3, petitioner was transferred from Chhatarpur to Damoh. Petitioner challenged this transfer by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.11631/2012. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide order-dated 8.8.2012 Annexure P/6 and the re...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »