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.
Prem Singh Bisht Damoh Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.1591/1999) Mahendra Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1592/1999) Manohar Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1593/1999) Prem Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1594/1999) R.C. Burra Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1595/1999) Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1463/1998) Dharmendra Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1686/1998) Prem Singh Bisht 2 W.P. No.1591/1999 and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri , A.K. Pathak, Advocate and Shri K.C. Ghildayal Counsel for Respondents Shri, Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General O R D E R (20/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Whether a Deputy Superintendent of Police, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Police...
Mohd. Aftab Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
R.P.No.813/2012 (Mohd. Aftab & Anot versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 19.11.2012 Shri Atul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The applicants have filed this application praying for review and recall of the order dated 13.7.2012 passed by this Court in W.P No.8105/2012 which had been filed by respondent no.6 alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities, in which this Court had issued a direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to look into the complaint filed by complainant Chabbilal and deal with it expeditiously in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a case has been registered against the applicants and, therefore, the order passed by this Court be recalled. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants at length. From a perusal of the order dated 13.7.2012 passed by this Court in W.P No.8105/2012 it is clear that this Court h...
Amita Paraste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Amita Paraste versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19314 19. 11.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another. Even though various grounds are raised challenging order of transfer, but considering the fact that a detailed representation submitted by petitioner assailing the transfer is still pending consideration before the competent authority, without entering into the controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of 4 weeks. If representation has not been presented, the same be submitted along with copy of this order within a period of one week. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy ...
Narbada Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 W.P.No.13746/05 (s) 19/11/12 Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Social Justice, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned order, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of absorption on the post of 'Gram Sahayak' w.e.f.1/02/82 and has also denied consequential arrears of salary and other monetary relief. On such consideration, it is stated that petitioner and many other employees were appointed as 'Gram Sahayaks' in the year 1979. The post of Gram Sahayak were abolished w.e.f.1/02/82 and the employees have been taken over as 'Panchayat Secretaries'. However, as the benefit of absorption to the petitioner w.e.f.1/02/82 was not granted, petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The writ petitio...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jagram Shakyawar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.A.No.1188/2012 19.11.2012 Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the appellants. This appeal is barred by two years and 187 days for which the appellants have moved I.A.No.13492/2012, an application seeking condonation of delay. Before considering the aforesaid, we have considered the case and the impugned order. From the perusal of record, we find that the respondent was working on the post of Chowkidar and by an order dated 04.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court he was classified as permanent worker. He had claimed before the writ court that he was entitled for minimum of the regular pay-scale. The learned Single Judge considering the law laid down in two judgments of this Court in Engineering-in-Chief, PHE versus Buddha Rao reported in 2002(1) MPLJ 3 and State of M.P.and others versus Hariram and otheRs.2008(3) MPHT 274 allowed the writ petition and directed appellants herein to make payment to the respondent for the post of Chowkidar and settle his claim within three months f...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Kuldeep Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri U.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that a representation against taking over the charge from the petitioner is still pending before the District Education Officer, Panna as is evident from Annexure P/3, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, District Education Officer, Panna is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/3 in accordance with law within a period of one month 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 Aks/-...
Sahajlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
sahajlal versus state 1 M.Cr.C.No.11637/2012 19/11/2012 Shri N.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent/ State. This is a seventh bail application who has been arrested and is implicated in Crime No.108/2008 for offences under Section 323/149, 325/149, 307/149, 302/149 of IPC, 148, 323/149 of IPC. Applicant is implicated in the offence for having participated in an incident that took place in the jail premises at Balaghat in which a person has died and the applicant is held responsible for the same. Bail applications on merit have already been rejected by this Court on more than four occasions. not bail is sought for only on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. Considering the same report has been called for from the District and Sessions Judge, Balaghat and it is seen that the trial in the matter is being expedited and the delay is only because of large number of witnesses involved in the matter. Report received fro...
Ram Gopal Mehar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.18567/2012 (R.G.Mehar versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012 Shri R.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail the impugned resolution before the competent authority under section 21(4) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is however, directed that in case the petitioner approaches the competent authority by 24th of November, 2012 along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the appeal/objections of the petitioner on merits, and shall not dismiss it only on the ground of limitation. It needs no emphasis to state that the authority concerned shall consider and decide the appeal/objections expeditiously, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Smt. Shail Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.A.No.1309/2012 19.11.2012 Shri Akash Choudhary, counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.1 & 2. Appellant is also directed to serve a copy of this appeal to Shri Suyash Tripathi, counsel who had appeared on behalf of petitioner before the writ Court, if already not served and to file acknowledgment in the office. If the acknowledgment is filed in the office, office to reflect name of Shri Suyash Tripathi, in the cause list. It is submitted by Shri Akash Choudhary that before the writ Court certain material facts were not placed and the appellant was also not impleaded as party, though she had joined in place of respondent no.3 Smt.Archana George. At present appellant is working at Khandwa and the appellant is suffering because of interim order passed by the writ Court. We have perused record and find that the writ Court while disposing of the matter directed the respondents to decide the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of recei...
Prakash Chandra Singhore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Prakash Chandra Singhore versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19323 19. 11.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another. Even though various grounds are raised challenging order of transfer, but considering the fact that a detailed representation submitted by petitioner assailing the transfer is still pending consideration before the competent authority, without entering into the controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of 4 weeks. If representation has not been presented, the same be submitted along with copy of this order within a period of one week. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Cert...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »