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.
Tulsi Ram Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.NO.11696/2011 19-11-2012. Shri Parag S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The controveRs.involved in this case is that the respondents instead of considering claim of the persons like petitioner for absorption after holding of the limited examination, for appointment as Contract TeacheRs.Grade- III have started some other process of recruitment. It was contended that since the petitioner has taken part in the said selection has been declared unsuccessful, the orders so issued and the action initiated was improper as the right accrued to the petitioner was taken away. The controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this court in Writ Petition No.91/2011(S) decided on 21/02/2011. By passing a detailed order, in the said case it has been held that the right accrued to the petitioner is required to be granted to them for consideration of their claiMs.If they are eligible a...
Mrs. Savitri Choudhari Vs. Dipali Rastogi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 Conc. No.1316/2011 19/11/2012 Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Devendra Gangrade, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the directions issued on 17.3.2010 in W.P.No.2921/2010 (s) appeal of the petitioner is not being decided by the Board of Directors within the time granted by this Court. Today Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court certain proceedings that had been held by the Board of Directors which goes to show that appeal of the petitioner is pending consideration before the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors have called the petitioner personally in the 111 meeting to be held of the Directors within a period of two months. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by Shri H.K.Upadhyay for the present without proceeding further in the matter, respondents are directed to conclude hearing of ...
Alok Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Alok Kumar Pathak versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19325 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 c...
Pushp Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt Shobharani @ Savitri Bai Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
F.A.No.486/2006 19.11.2012 Shri R.P.Khare, Advocate for the appellant. A letter has been received from the District Judge, Jabalpur dated 28.09.2012 seeking extension of one year time to decide the Civil Suit No.10-A/2005, which was directed to be decided within one year by order dated 25.08.2011 by this Court. Considering the nature of the case and the prayer made by the District Judge, we find it appropriate to allow the prayer and accordingly one year time is allowed to the District Judge to decide the Civil Suit No.10-A/2005. The aforesaid period shall commence from today. With the aforesaid, this P.U.D.is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the District Judge, Jabalpur, for compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Smt. Rajni Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
smt. rajni dubey versus state 1 W.P.No.19278/2012 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 Primary School, Annapura, 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 ...
Keerat Prasad Vs. Narayan Prasad and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 M.A. 1256/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA M.A. No.1256/2003 .........Appellant: Keerat Prasad, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Chadhar, Occupation- Service Pay Account Office, Defence M.R.C., Sagar, Resident of Quarter No.25, Lekha Nagar, Near Rathore Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Sagar, M.P. Versus .......Respondents:1. Narayan Prasad, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Chadhar, Government Servant, Commercial Tax Department, R/0 478, Krishnaganj Ward, Sagar, M.P.2. Govind Prasad Athiya, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Chadhar, Service, District Co- operative Central Bank, R/o 478, Krishnaganj Ward, Sagar, M.P. 3 Deputy General Manager & Head of Department, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate Respondents no.1 & 2 by- Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate Respondent no.3 by - Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Advocate --------------------------------------...
Pradeep Shah Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.17490/2012 (Pradeep Shah versus Bharat Petroleum Corp. LTD.& anor.) 19.11.2012 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy. The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the fact that the petitioner has a remedy to approach the grievance cell constituted by the Company for mitigation of his grievances, submits that he be granted liberty to do so. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case the petitioner approaches the grievance cell, his complaint shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach th grievance cell for mitigation of his grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Smt. Rekha Badel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
W.P.No.18829/2011 (Smt. Rekha Badel versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012 Shri Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State. Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn the previous petition filed by her as W.P.No.1574/2011, on 26.04.2011 with liberty to pursue the representation filed by her before the Corporation and pursuant thereto the petitioner has been pressing her representation but the respondent/Corporation has not decided the same till date. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the respondent/Corporation be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation Annexure P/3 expeditiously, in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordan...
Smt. Chandradevi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 W.P.No.9565/2012 19/11/2012 Shri V.K.Lakheda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner claims to be the fiRs.wife of deceased Shri Bhagwan Singh and it is her grievance that after death of Shri Bhagwan Singh, family pension is being denied to the petitioner and therefore, she is before this Court claiming family pension. Record indicates that Shri Bhagwan Singh was working as a Head Constable in 7th Battalion, Bhopal. He took voluntary retirement and was retired on 30.6.1993. After retirement it is admitted position that he died on 15.2.2005. Petitioner made a claim for grant of family pension after death of Shri Bhagwan Singh mainly on the ground that she was married to Late Shri Bhagwan Singh on 15.11.1960 and thereafter Shri Bhagwan Singh deserted her and married another lady one Smt. Geeta Bai. It is stated that as petitioner is the fiRs.wife of Shri Bhagwan Singh. She is legally entitled to claim the benefit of family ...
Nagendra Singh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Nagendra Singh 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »