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.
Deepak Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
deepak kumar tiwari versus state 1 W.P.No.19281/2012 19/11/2012 Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Naveen Middle School, Harda, District Harda. Petitioner was transferred from one school to another in the same District vide order dated 13.7.2012. Challenging the said transfer order petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.11819/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and it was found by this Court that on the grounds of breach of transfer policy, judicial review of an administrative order is not permissible. It was also found by this Court that transfer is not passed in violation of any statutory rules or regulations not does it suffer from the vices of malafide. Accordingly finding no case for interference writ petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of t...
Charan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.NO.12667/2011 19-11-2012. Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging not selection on the post of Fireman by the Municipal Corporation,Singrauli and inter alia contending that the petitioner has participated in the selection process, result has not been declared and no appointment is being made even though the petitioner was the only candidate who participated in the process of selection, this writ petition has been filed. Municipal Corporation,Singrauli issued an advertisement vide Annexure P-2 on 29-01-2011 notifying appointment on one post of fireman in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 +1900. The post was reserved for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe . It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed the requisite qualifying examination as is evident from Annexures P-2 and P-3. He appeared and participated in the interview but when nothing was done and the result was not declared he has filed this writ petition, Inter alia contending that the p...
Kaushlendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Kaushlendra Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri P.K.Singh 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 1989 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...
Nagendra Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Nagendra Kumar Dubey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19327 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. Certifie...
Saurabh Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.10818/10 19/11/12 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is a legal heir of Late Ram Sajiwan Pandey. Shri Ram Sajiwan Pandey was working as a 'Revenue Inspector' and was posted in Distt. Ambikapur, Sarguja. He died while working so on 31/10/97. Claiming compassionate appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Collector, Shahdol vide Annexure P-14 dated 1/10/07 has rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that petitioner's father was working in Distt. Ambikapur, Sarguja in the year 1997, appointment has to be made by the authorities of Distt. Sarguja and as the said district not falls within the State of C.G., it is for the State of C.G.to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that no action is taken by the office of Collector, Shahdol. Petitioner has brought on record the communication made from the office of Collector, Distt. Ambikapur, Sarguja Annexures P-9, ...
Smt. Ritu Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Smt. Ritu Yadav versus State & ORS.W.P.No.4747/2012 19/11/2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State Government is directed to seek instructions from Respondent No.2 The Collector District-Balaghat and indicate to this Court as to why the charge on the post of Panchayat Secretary/ Panchayat Karmi is not granted to the petitioner and why the petitioner is being denied benefit inspite of the fact that the Collector has quashed the order of cancellation of appointment as is evident from Annexure-P3. Inspite thereof, till date, it is grievance of the petitioner that the charge has not been granted. The Collector should either proceed for giving charge to the petitioner or to show cause as to why the charge cannot be granted. A copy of this order be supplied to Shri Rajesh Tiwari, for necessary compliance. List the matter on 12.12.2012. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur, Vs. M/S Digambar Kumar JaIn ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 ITA No.198 o19. 11/2012 Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13/06/2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, in ITA No.114/Jab/2010 Assessment Year 2007-08, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 08/07/2012. Both the authorities have found that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition of Rs.40 lakhs as the additional income of the appellant without any material, merely on the basis of statement recorded during survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was burden on the assessee to prove that the statement recorded by the Income Tax Officer, during the survey, was not correct. Both the authorities have erred in treating the statement under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, as incorrect, in absence of any corroboration by documentary evidence. It was submitted that thi...
Shashi Kant Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Shashi Kant Choubey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19311 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...
Buddhsen Harijan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Buddhsen Harijan versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1206 19. 11.2012: Shri G.R.Saket, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Matter pertains to grant of honorarium and reinstatement of petitioner on the post of Guruji in Education Guarantee Scheme, Harijan Basti, Ward No.1 Dharmapura, District Rewa. Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking payment of honorarium and certain other benefits, it is directed that, in case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting he shall submit representation to the Collector of the district concern and the Collector after hearing all concerned shall decide the claim of petitioner in accordance to law by a speaking order 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. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Sunil Kumar Chaurasia Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 Writ Petition No.18478/2012(PIL) 19.11.2012 Shri V.P.Kushwaha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. We find from the records that the petitioner stated in paragraph 3.12 of the petition as follows :- 3.12 : That earlier Writ Petition No.941/2012, listed before Honble Court, during couRs.of argument, found relief prayed by the petitioner fiRs.submitted representation before concerned authority therefore the petitioner make a prayer does not want to press earlier petition. Copy of the order dated 1.2.2012 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/8.However, a perusal of the order, annexed as Annexure P/8 at page 78 of the record, does not show that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to make a representation. It was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that he does not wish to press the petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »