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.
Ravindra Nath Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.A.No.1137/2012 08.11.2012 Shri Deepak Okhade, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy. Advocate General for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.07.2012 in W.P.No.11714/2012(S) by which the writ petition challenging the order of appellant of repatriation, was dismissed. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he may be permitted to file a fresh representation to the respondents for ventilation of his grievance and the appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the department to consider and decide the representation expeditiously. Shri Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. In view of aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of with following directions:- 1. Appellant may submit a fresh representation to the Department for ventilation of the grievance supported by documents and a copy of this order.2. If any such prayer is made by appellant along with a copy of this order, the responde...
Jitendra Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 MA 2629/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava M.A. No.2629/2011 .....APPELLANT Jitendra s/o Shri Rajendra Kumar R/o 500, Gulab Bai Colony Nagda Junction, District Ujjain (M.P.) -Versus- ....RESPONDENT: Union of India Through : The General Manager Western Railway Mumbai ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER {08.11.2012} This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the Act.) has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by learned Railway Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case not IIu/ 402/09 dismissing the claim application to be barred by time.2. In the claim application it has been pleaded by the claimant/appellant tha...
T.R. Carpenter Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.A.No.1125/2012 8.11.2012 Shri N.K.Agarwal, counsel for appellants. I.A.No.12867/2012 for condonation of delay. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, I.A.No.12867/2012 is allowed. Delay of 94 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.8.2012, by which an application filed by the appellants seeking restoration of W.P.No.10151/2010 was dismissed, with liberty to the appellants to seek review/recall of the order. Order dated 22.6.2012 in W.P.No.10151/2010 reads thus :- 22.6.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that by efflux of time the writ petition has rendered infructuous. The same is dismissed as such. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed as rendered infructuous. Against this order an application for restoration of writ petition was filed, but the learned Single Judge found that the aforesaid w...
R.B. Katariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
R.B.Katariya versus State of MP and two others 08.11.2012. Shri S.K.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Grade III in the office of Chief Medical and Health officer, Chhatarpur. On the ground that petitioner had taken illegal gratification from Smt. Saroj Saraswat and Ku. Bhagwati Ahirwar to the tune of `1500/- respectively, for getting some work of theirs undertaken. On the allegations being found to be prima facie proved on the basis of preliminary inquiry, petitioner was suspended. Order of suspension is Annexure P/1 dated 16.4.2009 and not after revocation of suspension vide order dated 1.10.2012 Annexure P/2, on his exoneration in the inquiry petitioner is not being posted in the same place from where the petitioner is suspended, but as the petitioner is posted in Primary Health Centre, Ramtoriya vide Annexure P/3, petitioner has challenged the posting in a different place after revoc...
Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 2[1]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1....W.P.No.17145 of 2012 S.N.Sharma Commissioner of Income Tax 08.11.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:1. To direct the respondent No.1 & 3 to decide the stay applications of the petitioner.2. To direct respondent No.3 to hear the appeals of the petitioner for the AY 2004.05 to 2010-11 expeditiously.3. To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon. Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appeal along with stay applications for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11 are pending before respondent No.3 who may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in these appeals prayer of the petitioner for staying recovery proceedings are also pending but these applications have not been considere...
Seva (Johri) Nursing Home Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.18191 / 2012 [Seva (Johri) Nursingh Home, Tikamgarh..Vs..State of M.P.& anr.].08-11-2012 Heard Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16-10-2012 by which the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tikamgarh has cancelled the registration of the petitioner under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 with immediate effect which has resulted in closing down the Nursing Home of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tikamgarh, without following the procedure prescribed by the Act of 1971 or the Rules of 2003 framed thereunder. In the circumstances, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to file an application before the State Government under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2003, therefore, looking to the f...
Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
vinot kumar dwivedi versus state 1 W.P.No.18412/2012 8/11/2012 Shri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Town Inspector, Kotwali, Dindori. A charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 dated 21.9.2012 mainly on the ground that a complaint has been received against the petitioner from Smt. Mathura Bai making various allegations against the petitioner with regard to misuse of his powers and falsely implicating her family members and releasing them after obtaining Rs.1,50,000/-. Petitioner has been suspended and a departmental enquiry has been ordered. Referring to the statements of the witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry and enquiry report based on these materials, allegations leveled in the charge sheet are not made out and therefore, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Grievance of the petitioner is that allegations leveled in the charge sheet ...
Arun Ramchandra Salve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.A.No.218/2006 8.11.2012 Shri N.K.Salunke, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for State. I.A.No.14618/2012 seeking withdrawal of this appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that this matter relates to allocation of appellant to the State of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of this appeal appellant has been re-allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and not he is working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that his grievance has been redressed, so he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal. Learned counsel for State has no objection, hence prayer is allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) M. Judge Judge...
Smt. Gulabkali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
W.P.No.18219/2012 Smt. Gulabkali versus State of M.P.& ORS.07.11.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging improper investigation on the part of the police authorities in Crime No.285/2012 registered against accused Rajamani Vaisya at Police Station Majhauli, District Sidhi. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent police authorities to arrest the said Rajmani Vaisya. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is observed that the present petition has been filed without impleading Rajmani Vaisya, against whom the relief has been sought by the petitioner. Quite apart from the above, it is apparent from the petition itself that the respondent police authorities have registered an FIR and are conducting investigation in accordance with law and therefore there is no reason to issue any direction against the police authorities. In ca...
Prakash Kumar Chandrawanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
Prakash Kumar Chandrawanshi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18881 7. 11.2012: Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Petitioner is working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Amgaon, Tehsil Pushprajgarh, District Anooppur. By the impugned order he has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and breach of transfer policy. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition for assailing the order of transfer are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Those grounds are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the department and a decision taken. In view of above, it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed representation, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »