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.
Dr. K.M.Shrivastava Vs. Chairman and M.D., B.H.E.L and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.5431/2002 (Dr. K.M.Shrivastava versus Chairman and Managing Director and otheRs.08.11.2012 Shri Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for removing certain lacunas in the procedure prescribed for recording the A.C.Rs.Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated from service during the pendency of the present petition. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh in case any cause of action survives or arises. With the aforesaid liberty, petition stands disposed of as infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Devendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Devendra Singh Rajput versus State & ORS.W.P.No.1272/2011 08/11/2012 Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. This is a case, where the petitioner, a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Konikala under Janpad Panchayat Majholi, Tehsil Sihora District-Jabalpur has been removed from the post on basis of certain enquiry conducted against him. It is the case of the petitioner that no enquiry has been conducted and even if any enquiry is conducted, it is behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the action is illegal. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, this Court on 30th of January, 2012 directed Respondent No.4 the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Majholi to produce the entire original enquiry report and file an affidavit indicating as to whether the enquiry...
Prem Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.18462/2012 (Prem Bai versus State of M.P.& ors.) 08.11.2012 Heard Shri Satpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.5 and 6 are committing irregularities in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat. The appropriate remedy available to the petitioner in such circumstances is so approach the competent authority prescribed under the provisions of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioner without approaching the authorities has directly approached this court by filing the present petition. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for mitigation of her grievances. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn W.P.No.18462/2012 (Prem Bai versus State of M.P.& ors.)...
Dimagchand Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.P.No.18651/2012 Dimagchand Bharti versus State of M.P.& ORS.08.11.2012 Heard Shri Ahadulla Usmani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. After arguing at length, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to place all facts before the High Power Committee including the fact that he has been exonerated in the previous two enquiries conducted by the subordinate authorities which aspect may be directed to be considered by the High Power Committee and the petitioner may also be given an opportunity of hearing before passing any order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no such direction is necessary as the High Power Committee has already given a show cause notice to the petitioner and would also give the petitioner full opportunity to place all facts before the High Power Committee. It goes without saying that the petitioner would also be given ...
Gyan Chandra Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.18809/2012 (Gyan Chand Rai versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 08.11.2012 Heard Shri Aroop K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though several reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner in the present petition, he does not wish to press the same but only prays for liberty to approach the respondent No.2 by filing a representation placing before him the petitioner's grievances. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. In case the petitioner does approach the respondent No.2 alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the said authority shall look into the same and deal with it in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
R.K.Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.A.No.1286/2012 R.K.Shrivastava The State of M.P.& others 8.11.2012 Shri K.N.Bundela, Counsel for appellant. Shri Mrigendra Singh, Counsel for respondent No.3. This appeal is directed against an order dated 16.10.2012 in W.P.No.17364/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging his transfer order from Damoh to Mauganj was dismissed. Learned counsel for appellant submits that to accommodate respondent No.3, aforesaid transfer order has been issued. Respondent No.3 earlier was posted at Tendukheda on 6.6.2011 from where he was transferred to Mauganj on 18.6.2012 and thereafter on 29.9.2012, respondent No.3 has been transferred to Damoh and the appellant has been transferred to Mauganj. It was submitted that to accommodate respondent No.3, the appellant has been transferred. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in fact the appellant was at Damoh for 5 years between 10.7.2007 and 18.6.2012 and after completion of nearabout 5 year...
Smt. Sobha Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Smt. Sobha Chourasiya versus State of MP and otheRs.08.11.2012. Shri V.P.Singh for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the State. Petitioner has been denied appointment on contract basis on the post of Assistant Teacher and instead appointment is granted to her on the post of Contract Teacher mainly on the ground that petitioner does not possess B.Ed or D.Ed Degree. It is the case of the petitioner that possession of the aforesaid qualification is not necessary for grant of compassionate appointment and many other persons have been granted the benefit even though the aforesaid qualification is not available with them. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Kesla, District Hoshangabad respondent No.6 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and after taking note of the benefit granted to other employees as indicated hereinabove, decide her claim in the matter of grant of compassionate appoi...
Smt. Firdos Jaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.17305/2012 08.11.2012 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas VictiMs.Bhopal in Case not SMR 01/131/12 (3648/93) Claim No.184667 by which the revision preferred by the petitioner invoking powers of suo motu revision was dismissed. Learned Commissioner recorded a finding that the petitioner herein suffered ailment namely Dysponea and Hypertension which was under Category 5-2(d) and as per schedule Ex-gratia payment was made to the petitioner. As the claim of the petitioner was categorized in Category 5-2(d) and payment was made as per the schedule. Until and unless the petitioner is able to show that aforesaid categorization is not correct, the petitioner is not entitled for aforesaid claim. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the petitioner b...
Tarunendra Shekhar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.17100/12 (s) 8/11/12 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. Various grounds are raised in this writ petition and it is stated that as petitioner had previously made certain complaints against respondents No.7 and 8, the present proceedings initiated in view of the show-cause notice should not be considered by respondents No.6 and 7, instead the same should be initiated by the independent authority who should look into the grievance of the petitioner and take action on the show-cause notice. From the material available on record, prima facie, there seems to be some merit in the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. Earlier, when certain persons were appointed, petitioner had made a complaint and in this complaint, the appointments were cancelled as respondents No.7 and 8 had certain role in the said appointment. Now, a s...
Sikandar Hafiz Alias Nawab Mia Vs. Hifuz Rahman Alias Chhote Mia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Writ Petition No.12587/2012 08.11.2012 Let this matter be listed under the same head alongwith WP No.12588/2012 in the month of January 2013, as prayed in such other petition. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks W.P No.13371 o10. 09.2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.10805/12, an application for grant of interim relief, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date within one month be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The interim prayer for grant of interim injunction as prayed by the petitioneRs.counsel shall be considered after receiving the service report of said notices. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »