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.
Ram Niwas Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Ram Nivas Saket versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri Yogesh Mishra for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is facing a departmental inquiry and grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are not supplying to him the requisite documents and other papers required. Normally when a departmental inquiry is in progress, a writ court is not supposed to interfere into the matter at all stages and issue directions with regard to the manner in which the departmental inquiry is to be conducted. The petitioner may represent to the departmental authorities and it would be for the authorities to consider his grievance with regard to supply of documents and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, for the present finding no case for interference, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Kailash Mangal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 W.P.No.18397/2012 Kailash Mangal & Ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.19.11.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the concerned authority of the Co.operative Department for taking action against the office bearers of respondent no.5 Society against whom it is alleged that an enquiry has been conducted by the Co-operative Inspector upon which the authorities have already taken cognizance and have issued letter dated 18.7.2012, Annexure P-9, stating that proceedings under section 53 (2) of the M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are being initiated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of the aforesaid report and the communication dated 18.7.2012 no steps have been taken by the authorities against the office bearers not have the authorities taken any steps to conduct election of the society after the term of the...
Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Ramesh Kumar Moolchandani 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 hav...
National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Lalla Ram Kewat and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
(1) M.A. No.1123/2004 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.1123 / 2004 Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. Through the Divisional Manager, 495, Karamchand Chowk, Marhatal, Jabalpur (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Lalla Ram Kewat, S/o. Lalman Kewat, R/o. Bajrang Ward, Deori, P.S. Panagar, District Jabalpur 2. Shankar Lal Banskar Occupation Contractor, RPG Transmission Co. Village Panchayat Raipura PO & PS District Jabalpur 3. RPG Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Deori, Panagar, District Jabalpur (M.P.) _______________________________________________________ Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for appellant. Shri Manot Chandulkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri Ravish Deolia, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri Anup Nair, Advocate for respondent no.3. _______________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 19th day of November, 2012) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens (2) M.A. No.1123/2004 C...
Vasudev Padwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Vasudev Padwar versus State of MP and otheRs.19.11.2012. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Against the impugned order of suspension impugned as an appeal under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is maintainable, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that in case petitioner prefers an appeal under the aforesaid statutory provision before the competent appellate authority, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law within a period of four weeks 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/-...
Mangesh Shrivas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Mangesh Shrivas versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19313 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 cop...
Abhilah Kumar Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Abhilash Kumar Maravi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19326 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. Certifi...
Smt. Geeta Marko Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
1 W.P.No.18896/2012 Smt. Geeta Marko & Anot versus State of M.P.& ORS.19.11.2012 Heard Shri Rajmani Mishra learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioners in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.5 to verify the service book of the petitioners after their absorption on the post of supervisor in Woman and Child Development Project, Mehadwari, District Dindori. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.5 to look into the representations of the petitioneRs.Annexure P-4, and take a decision thereon expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served on him by the petitioneRs.It is made clear ...
Smt. Prabhawati Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Smt. Prabhawati Mehra versus State of MP and otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri Sanjay Gupta for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Teacher and by the order passed by the competent authority on 14.7.2012, she has been transferred from one school to another in the same District. Petitioner has complied with the order of transfer and has joined on the place of posting, but thereafter has submitted a representation seeking modification/cancellation of the transfer on various grounds. Grievance of the petitioner is that the representation is pending since 23.7.2012, more than three months are over and till date no action is taken. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified c...
Anand Gupta Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [Bpcl]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Writ Petition No.16834/12. 9.11.2012 Shri Bramha Datt Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure-P-12) passed by the Additional District Judge Bhopal, in Regular Civil Suit No.381-A/2010, whereby his application filed under Section 30 read with Section 151 of CPC for permitting the petitioner to call and examine the witnesses mentioned in the application and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking the true copy of other sale deeds which was registered by the sub-Registrar on dated 12.7.2010, on record, have been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed along with the aforesaid both the applications as well as the impugned order. It is undisputed fact in the matter that at the initial stage on the date of settlement of the issues, no list of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »