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.
Girdhari @ Gorav Malgani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P.No.14795/2012 Girdhari @ Gaurav Malgani versus State of M.P.& ORS.09.11.2012 Shri Anand Chawla, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Atulanand Awasthy learned counsel for respondent no.4. On the orders passed by this Court on 24.08.2012, petitioner's wife Deepika Malgani is present in person in the Court. Smt. Deepika Malgani states that she is living away from the petitioner on her own free will. All efforts at reconciliation made by the petitioner with Deepika Malgani have been rejected by her. Though the said Deepika Malgani initially agreed to make an attempt to settle the dispute, however subsequently she states that she does not wish to stay with the petitioner and that she is staying away from him on her own free will without any compulsion or force being applied by any of the respondents and that she has not been detained illegally by anyone. In view of the aforesaid statement of Smt. Deepika Malgani, who is present in the Court, nothing further survives for adjud...
Munnalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Munnalal versus State of Madhya Pradesh and six otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri V.P.Singh for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner has been suspended. Allegation against the petitioner was that he and certain other persons respondent Nos.4 to 7, were found gambling in the office premises and, therefore, pending departmental action they have been suspended. Grievance of the petitioner is that in the case of respondent Nos.4 to 7 the suspension order has been revoked, but in his case the benefit is not extended. Keeping in view the aforesaid, on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith the details with regard to the claim before the competent appellate authority authorized to hear the appeal under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal by a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt. While deciding the...
Krishn Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.19231/2012 Krishn Kumar State of M.P.& others 9.11.2012 Shri Amitabh Gupta, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. Heard on admission. Issue show cause notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week. Petitioner is also directed to serve one more copy of the petition to Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.A.G., during the couRs.of the day, against acknowledgment. Shri Pandey, prays for a short time to seek instructions. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 3.12.2012. Ad-interim writ. It is submitted by the petitioner that the houses of various persons are situated on the land in question survey no.457 of village Orchha, since more than 50 years and all of a sudden the khaSr.entries are changed and not the persons residing on the land in houses are apprehending that their houses may be demolished during the vacation of Deepawali. It is submitted that the respondents may be restrained from demolishing the houses on the aforesaid land. Sh...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.19253/2012 09/11/2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Tiwari, learned P.L. for the respondents/State. Petitioner claims grant of compassionate appointment. Petitioner's mother was working in the respondent's department and has died in harness on 12.10.2010. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner is not considered and the same is still pending. In view of the aforesaid, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with policies and circulars applicable and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of four months. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Bihari Lal Dahayat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Bihari Lal Dahayat versus State of MP and otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri Amit Chaturvedi for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging cancellation of his transfer order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that a representation in the matter is still pending and, therefore, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the representation is decided, status quo in the matter as is existing today, shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Shailendra Sonakiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sonakiya versus State & Anr. W.P.No.19251/2012 09/11/2012 Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Tiwari, learned P.L for the respondent No.1. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel on advance notice for Respondent No.2. Petitioner is working as a Contract Medical Officer and is more than 40 years of age. He has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature for appearing in the M.P.Civil Services Examination. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of Clause-5 of the advertisement Annexure-P2, the petitioner is entitled to age-relaxation upto the age 45 years and as the same is not granted to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to Clause-5 of the advertisement Annexure-P2 to contend that in the case of Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees so also with regard to Contract Employees, the Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sonakiya versu...
Satish Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.A.No.1166/2012 Satish Shrivastava State of M.P.and others 9.11.2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the writ Court by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against transferring the appellant to Government Higher Secondary School Indrana, District Jabalpur as Assistant Grade II was dismissed. Learned counsel for appellant submits that earlier he had made a representation for his transfer from Government Rajya Vigyan Shikshan Sansthan to the office of the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Law Cell or to Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Beoharbagh. Aforesaid prayer was accepted and the appellant was posted in the office of the Joint Director in Law Cell vide Annexure P/3 dated 15.7.2012. Thereafter, such transfer order was cancelled vide Annexure P/1 dated 10.9.2012 and the appellant was posted at Government Higher Secondary School Indrana on the v...
Hyatu Nisa Vs. Vikas Bhatia
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...
M.K. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P.No.16995/12 9/11/12 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner and respondent No.4 are working as InspectORS.Weights and Measures and this writ petition is filed and the dispute in this writ petition pertains to transfer. Petitioner was appointed in the department in the year 1982 at Tikamgarh. He was promoted as an 'Inspector' in the year 2003 and joined on the post of 'Inspector' on 6/06/03 at Gwalior. In August/September 2003, petitioner was posted as 'Inspector' Weights and Measures at Rewa. Thereafter, in August 2006, he was transferred to Sagar. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 13/07/12, petitioner is transferred from Sagar to Raisen after having remained in Sagar for a period of 6 years and by the same order Annexure P-1 respondent No.4 Shri Rajeev Sachdeva was transferred from Raisen to Na...
Vinod Kailash Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P.No.18568/2012 Vinot Kailash Sharma The State of M.P.& others 9.11.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. AG for respondents. It is submitted by the petitioner that on identical issue, a writ petition bearing No.15370/2010 has already been entertained by this Court, but not respondent No.2 has issued a notice Annexure P/8, so this petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the terminal tax on export of Bananas is not payable to the Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. Considering aforesaid, we direct issuance of notice to all the respondents by speed post. Steps within 3 working days. Notices be made returnable before next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 5.12.2012. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondent No.2 shall not take coercive action for enforcing notice under recovery Annexure P/8 dated 11/22.10.2012. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) C. Judge Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »