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.
Smt. Pooja Rooplani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.18324/2012 (Smt. Pooja Ruplani versus State of M.P.& ors.) 19.11.2012 Heard Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging in action on the part of the police authorities against respondent No.7 and otheRs.From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 have been settled by them vide Annexure P-4 and it relates to certain dues between the parties. In the circumstances, I find no reason to issue any direction to the police authorities to take any action against the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with...
Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Ajay Kumar Pandey versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri S.K.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, 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/-...
Jaiprakash Associates Otd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.15740/2012 Jaiprakash Associates LTD.State of M.P.& others 19.11.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate, Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Manot Kushwaha and Shri K.K.Gautam, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Jaiswal that in identical matter W.P.No.440/2008 and other allied matters an elaborate order has been passed on 4.8.2009. The operative part of the order reads thus :- Though we have maintained the interim direction in this regard, yet we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. After the Committee takes a decision, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks so that the appellants may approach the appropriate legal forum, if so advised. Needless to emphasize, the appellants would be at liberty to putforth the stand and stance from all spectrums including the facts and law. It is hereby clarified that the decision taken by the Committee can be assailed ...
Anil Shrivas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Anil Shrivas versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19312 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 a...
Shaikh Babbu Vs. Govind
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
F.A.No.416/2010 19.11.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Shweta Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. I.A.No.6325/2012 for modification of order dated 14.02.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant Sheikh Babu was a very poor person and could not deposit the cost incurred in the court below, though he had filed an application for modification of interim stay dated 02.12.2010 which was allowed on 14.02.2011 but in spite of this, he was unable to deposit the cost in two installments as directed on 14.02.2011. However, he has died on 23.02.2011. not the heirs are his widow and three minot children, who are not in a position to deposit the cost. On the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that the order dated 14.02.2011, directing the appellant herein, to deposit the cost incurred in the court below may be modified and they may be exempted from depositing the cost. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has oppos...
Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Mukesh Kumar Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.15668 19. 11.2012: Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State and some of the interveneRs.Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for one of the intervener Shri Hulasi Ram Iavne. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order Annexure P-4 dated 1.9.2012 by which charge of Superintendent of Boys Hostel Deori has been taken away from him. Interalia contending that petitioner is granted the charge which is taken away illegally, this writ petition has been filed. From the objections raised by intervener Shri Hulasi Ram Iavne it is seen that Shri Hulasi Ram Iavne is Upper Division Teacher and charge of Superintendent of Hostel has been granted to him as he is the senior most U.D.T.and petitioner is posted substantively on his original post of Assistant Teacher in the same Balak Aashram at Deori. It is the case of petitioner that he is not posted a...
Shashi Bhushan Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Shashi Bhushan Dubey versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Claiming the benefit of certain directions issued on 5.4.2010, in W.P.No.4114/2010(s).petitioner has filed this writ petition and it is stated that his claim be examined in accordance with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.7.2007 in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) and benefit extended. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel, submits that claim of the petitioner is identical to the one already decided by this Court as indicated hereinabove and, therefore, similar benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, invites my attention to the observations made by the Division Bench in its order passed on 17.7.2007, in W.P.No.7854/2006(s) i.e para- 35 (h) and submits that as the Division Bench has restricted the benefit to be granted only to such candidates, who have app...
Archana Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 W.A.No.1176/2012 Archana Thakur State of M.P.& others 19.11.2012 Shri V.P.Singh, Counsel for appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.8.2012 passed in W.P.No.12940/12 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground, that on the basis of select list of 2008, no order could have been issued for appointment of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of decision of the writ petition, appellant was not possessing certain documents and not appellant has received certain documents to show that from the select list of 2008, certain appointments were made in 2010 after training of the persons who were less meritorious in comparison to the appellant. Stating aforesaid, it is submitted that appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to seek review of the order passed by the Single Bench. Considering peculiar facts, we permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal with liberty as prayed. No ...
N.A.Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
N.A.Ansari versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri A.T.Faridi for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for the State, on advance notice. Considering the fact that petitioner, an Assistant Project Manager in the Rural Engineering Services, has already joined on the transferred post, for the present without interfering into the matter on merits, the competent authority before whom the representation filed by the petitioner is pending, is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four 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 Aks/-...
Anant Ram Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Anant Ram Rajak versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri Shyam Yadav for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in the respondents establishment since 1975 and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (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. Petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »