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.
Rajendra Kumar Malviya Vs. Satpura Narbada Kshetriya Grameen Bank 800/ ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P.No.18875/2012 9/11/2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar, for the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri C.S.Thakur, learned counsel appears for the respondents and takes notice. Three copies of petition along with annexures be served on Shri Thakur. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on interim relief. Petitioner prays for interim relief mainly on the ground that punishment imposed amounts to clubbing together both minot and major punishment and in view of law laid down in the case of Union of India and another Vs.S.C. Parashar - 2006 SCC (L&S) 496 followed by this Court in W.P.No.3173/1997 - Raghvendra Ranjan Das versus Central Bank of India and others vide Annexure P/3 clubbing together of punishment is impermissible and therefore petitioner prays for stay. Shri C.S.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the punishment has been imposed after due enquiry and if order is stayed, the same would ...
Gopal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Gopal Singh 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/-...
Maulana Azad B.Ed. College, Gram Gularkhedi, Tah. Gulabganj, Distt. Vi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.18463/2012 09/11/2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent No.3. This petition is directed against an order dated 15.09.2012 passed by respondent No.2 by which prayer of petitioner for grant of recognition to Maulana Azad B.Ed. College for B.Ed. CouRs.was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact on a totally untenable ground the recognition has been refused. The respondent No.2 ought to have looked into diversion orders Annexure P-10 and P-11 filed by the petitioner but without considering it in proper perspective the application has been rejected. An appeal is provided under Section 18 of the N.C.T.E.Act against the impugned order dated 15.09.2012. The petitioner is having alternative, efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 15.09.2012. As aforesaid remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, ...
M.L. Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
1 W.P.No.12136/2012 9/11/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents State. They are heard on an application for vacating stay I.A.No.13121/2012 filed by the State Government. Petitioners are on deputation with the Capital Project Construction Circle and they are being repatriated back to their parent department i.e.Public Works Department. The main contention of the petitioners are that they were transferred along with their post to Public Works Department and not as Public Works Department has indicated that the posts are not available by bringing to the notice of this Court certain communication made by the Public Works Department in Annexure P/17 and P/18 filed along with I.A.No.14257/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildyal submits that petitioners apprehend that they will not be permitted to join duties in the Public Works Department and therefore, the stay be continued. Respondents have filed return and h...
Arun Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Home (Police)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Arun Kumar Dubey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18799 9. 11.2012: Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel for respondents/State. As an appeal filed by petitioner imposing penalty is said to be pending since 2003, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits, respondent No.3, Inspector General of Police, is directed to decide the appeal in accordance to law within a period of 60 days. However, in case the appeal is being decided and decision taken, the same be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Smt. Neema Vishwas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Smt. Neema Vishwas and another versus State of MP and otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri Amit Chaturvedi for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging cancellation of their 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/-...
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
MCC NO.768/2012 09-11-2012 Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.12763/08. The said writ petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against a Private Limited Company, an individual and it was the case of the petitioner that there being breach of contract entered into between the parties , action be taken against the non- applicants and an arbitrator be appointed. It seems that due to default committed by the petitioner the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and on an application filed it was restored but subsequently due to not compliance of certain directions issued the writ petition was again dismissed and the petitioner is before this court. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and even if the prayer made in this application is allowed and the writ petition is restored no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner for the simple reason that the dispu...
Smt. Maya Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Smt. Maya Singh versus State of MP and three otheRs.09.11.2012. Shri B.N.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Sub Inspector and is Officer Incharge of Police Station Sirali, District Harda. Petitioner has been transferred from Harda to Hoshangabad. According to the petitioner, Hoshangabad is her home town and a Sub Inspector cannot be posted in the Home District. Keeping in view the aforesaid, petitioner has sought for modification/cancellation of the transfer. A representation in this regard has been forwarded to the Director General of Police as is evident from Annexure P/8, and till date as a decision in the matter is not taken, petitioner is before this Court. Keeping in view the grounds raised as are indicated hereinabove, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take note of the grievance of the petitioner, evaluate it in the light of t...
Smt. Shanti Bramhabhatt Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
W.P.No.19009/2012 09/11/2012 Shri Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as an A.N.M in SubHealth Center Niwari under Community Health Center Kareli District Narsinghpur and has been transferred vide order AnnexureP1 dated 2.11.2012 to SubHealth Center Madesur, Chawarpatha in the same Tahsil. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to certain ailments and on the ground that the place where the petitioner is posted is an interior place and therefore, the petitioner cannot be transferred. The grounds raised in this writ petition are personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to which she cannot carry out the order of transfer. The said grounds are to be considered by the competent authority of the department. In view of the above, on the petitioner's filing a certified copy ...
Dileep Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-2012
Dileep Kumar Sahu versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18830 9. 11.2012: Shri Sandeep Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel for respondents/State. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that the appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision under the M.P.Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyma, 1993 and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.of statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of statutory remedy of appeal available this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »