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.
Kallu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Writ Petition No.18652/12. 9.11.2012 Shri Neeraj Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners without challenging any specific order, have filed this petition for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to determine the compensation at the market rate with respect of the land which is being acquisitioned by such authorities regarding some project of respondent no.5. In addition to it, the prayer for directing the respondent no.2 to give the service to one family member of the petitioners in accordance with the policy of the State Govt, is also made. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing this petition but on asking the petitioners counsel whether their representation Annexure-P-5 has been adjudicated and considered or the same is still pending for adjudication on which, he submits that their representation Annexure-P-5 is still pending for cons...
Smt. Shakun Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.19242 / 2012 (Smt. Shakun Bai ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.09-11-2012 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18-10-2012 whereby orders of eviction of the petitioner have been passed by the authority under Section 248 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a dispute in respect of the land and house situated in Ward No.11, Sihora, District Jabalpur between the petitioner and the respondents No.4 and 5 but the respondents No.4 and 5 without following the due procedure prescribed by law, has misused the provisions of the Code by filing an application under Section 248 contained therein and has obtained the impugned order from Tahsildar, Sihora for eviction of the petitioner from...
ittan @ Darvesh Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P No.16270/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.16270/2012 PETITIONER : ITTAN @ DARVESH SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Y. M. Tiwari, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, JJ.ORDER (09/11/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 20.11.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Katni by which the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the State whereby the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate has been affirmed.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner who is a resident of Katni was served with...
Sudama Prasad Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Sudama Prasad versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18908 9. 11.2012: Shri K.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel for respondents/State. Considering the fact that representation of the petitioner dated 12.10.2012, with regard to challenge to the order of transfer dated 9.10.2012, is still pending, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Raj Kumar Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.19102 / 2012 (Raj Kumar Lodhi ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.09-11-2012 Heard Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the S.D.O, Dheemarkheda District Katni is not taking any action in spite of the enquiry report being submitted before him in respect of certain irregularities committed by the Sarpanch and Secretary, the respondents No.4 and 5 respectively in the implementation of Manrega Scheme. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint in this regard has been filed by the petitioner before the S.D.O.on 28-8-2012 to take appropriate action on the said report but no action thereon has been taken by the authorities till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the S.D.O., Dheemarkheda, District Katni to take action against the respondents No.4 and 5. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respo...
Shaniram Sarayam Vs. M.P. Housingh Boad,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.18817 / 2012 (Shaniram Saryam..Vs..MP Housing Board, Bhopal & another) 09-11-2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 3-10-2012 passed by the respondent No.2, the Estate Officer, M.P.Housing Board, Chhindwara Division, Chhindwara whereby the respondents are seeking to recover a sum of Rs.37,61,133/- as consideration for Housing Board HIG residential house constructed by the Housing Board which had been initially allotted by them for a sum of Rs.15.67 lacs which has already been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the price of the HIG accommodation has been increased only on account of the Collector rate which has been recently notified for the purposes of registration and stamp duty which is not permissible as the authorities are only requ...
Shivlal Raidas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Shivlal Raidas & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19212 9. 11.2012: Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. Petitioners are working on contract basis as Data Entry Operators and it is their grievance that not their work is being out- sourced and is granted to respondent No.5 company and apprehending that it would adversely effect petitioner's service they have filed this writ petition challenging contract granted to respondent No.5. Records indicate that vide order Annexure P-1 dated 23.7.2012 work of data entry operator has been allocated to M/S.Rewa Group of Solution, Jabalpur, respondent No.5, and it has been done on the basis of policy decision of the competent authority of the State Government. Petitioners are only part-time computer operators appointed as daily wages employee on collector-rate as data entry operator. Petitioners have not received right compensation on the basis of dail...
Sanjeev Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Sanjeev Singh Rajpur versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18979 9. 11.2012: Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer present on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel in W.P.No.14816/2012 is also present and the said writ petition is filed by respondent No.5 Shri Ashish Mishra. Facts that have come on record indicates that the process of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was undertaken in the Panchayat in question and based on the procedure conducted it is seen that respondent No.5 Shri Ashish Mishra was appointed. Challenging appointment of Shri Ashish Mishra, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, the Collector took note of the grievance of petitioner and in the said appeal filed by petitioner before the Collector Shri Ashish Mishra was impleaded as respondent No.1. After going through the material available on record the Collector recorded findings on 26.6.2012, in the said...
V.K. Borkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
V.K.Borkar versus State of Madhya Pradesh and six otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri S.N.Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Circle Organizer in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Balaghat and by the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred from Balaghat to Guna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioners wife is suffering from certain mental ailment, she is undergoing treatment at Balaghat and, therefore, if the petitioner is transferred out of Balaghat, her treatment would be adversely affected and on such consideration, the transfer be interfered with. Placing reliance of certain provisions of the transfer policy, which contemplates consideration of such a request, interference is sought into the matter. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition are his personal inconveniences, due to which he is unable to...
Kranti Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1....W.A.No.1287 of 2012 Kranti Kumar Jain & anr. State of M.P.and ORS.08.11.2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Pandey. Shri Pandey prays for four weeks time to file reply. Prayer allowed. List for hearing after four weeks. Ad interim writ : Till next date of hearing, it is directed that status quo as on today in respect of possession over the disputed land be maintained by both the parties. List for hearing in the 1st week of January,2013. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »