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.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre, Indore Vs. the State of Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
R.P.No.257 of 2012. 7.11.2012. Shri Ashok Lalwani for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for the respondents. This application is filed seeking review of the order dt.4.1.2012 in W.P.No.13711/05. It was submitted by Shri Lalwani that he was the counsel in the matter,but, because of the statement made by some other counsel, the petitioner was dismissed as rendered infructuous while it was not. It is submitted that the case deserves to be heard on merits. On raising such contention, Shr P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy.AG appearing for the State submitted that he has no objection if the main case is heard on merits. Considering the fact that W.P.No.13711/05 was disposed of finally along with some other matters on a statement made by a counsel other than who was engaged in the case, we find it appropriate to recall order dt.4.1.2012 in W.P.No.13711/05 and direct the office to list the aforesaid case for hearing. With the aforesaid direction, this review petition No.257/12 is finally disposed of...
Ram Niwaj Gadari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Panchaya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
Ram Niwaj Gadari versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18797 7. 11.2012: Shri J.L.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Petitioner has been transferred from one Gram Panchayhat to another and challenging the said transfer petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.14951/2012 and on 12.9.2012 the writ petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. By holding that petitioner is not working with proper coordination in Gram Panchayat, petitioner's representation has been rejected vide Annexure P-1. By filing an affidavit of Sarpanch and contending that he is not involved in any such activities, petitioner wants interference into the matter. The transfer in question is not in breach of statutory rules or regulations not is malafide made out. The competent authority namely the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat Shahdol has considered and reje...
Mahila Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ward No.35 Satna Vs. the State of Madh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
1 W.P.No.18810/2012 Mahila Sahkari Uphbokhta Bhandar versus State of M.P.& ORS.07.11.2012 Shri S.P.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.10.2012 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the licence to run the Fair Price Shop issued to the petitioner has been suspended and in the meanwhile the respondent no.5 has been authorized to perform the petitioner's duty. Admittedly and apparently, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 is appealable under the provisions of law and the appellate authority has also been granted powers to issue interim ordeRs.In the circumstances, as all the issues raised by the petitioner requires adjudication upon disputed questions of facts, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, filed by the petitioner, is accordingly disposed of w...
Ashok Kumar Kale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
Ashok Kumar Kale. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18918 7. 11.2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Considering the fact that representation of petitioner assailing his transfer Annexure P-2 is still pending, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merit, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
W.P.No.18256/2012 (S.K.Dubey versus State of MP and otheRs.07.11.2012 Heard Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.2/Collector to consider and decide the application bringing to his notice the fact that the respondent No.6/Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kamod, Janpad Panchayat Gotegaon District Narsinghpur has been convicted for offence punishable under sections 452 of the I.P.C.as well as fine for offence punishable under section 357(1) of the I.P.C.inspite of which he continues to work as Secretary contrary to the provisions of the rules governing services. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from the date ...
Lakhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
1 W.P.No.18910/2012 7/11/2012 Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Head Master in Government Model Kalster Middle School, Rampur Khajuri Samkul, Shahnagar, District Panna. Petitioner was suspended and challenging the suspension, petitioner approached this Court in various writ petitions and finally the petitions were disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner. The appeal has been decided and petitioner's suspension has been revoked. However, on revocation of suspension vide order Annexure P/9 dated 17.2.2011 as petitioner is transferred to a different place than the place from where he was suspended, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is not reinstated in the same place from where he has been suspended, transferring of the petitioner on revocatio...
Rajesh Albert Vs. Akhilesh Albert
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
1 W.P.No.17735 o07. 11.2012 Shri R.D.Hundikar, 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 29.9.12 Annex.P/1 passed by the Additional Collector, Damoh in Revenue Revision No.28/B-121/2011-12. It appears that such revision was filed by the petitioner against some order passed by the subordinate revenue authority but neither the copy of the application filed before such authority not the copy of the order passed by such authority which was the subject matter of the impugned revision, has been placed on record by the petitioner, hence he is directed to place such documents on record within 15 days. Apart the above, it is apparent fact that the order of the Addl. Collector has been challenged in this petition but such authority has not been impleaded as party in the present petition. Hence, petitioner's counsel is directed to take appropriate step...
Ku.Swatantra Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
1 W.P.No.18848/2012 Ku. Swatantra Tripathi versus State of M.P.& ORS.07.11.2012 Petitioner Ku. Swatantra Tripathi appeared in person. The petitioner has alleged inaction and irregular enquiry conducted by the police authorities on the complaint filed by her. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner, in such cases, is to approach the authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to take up proceedings by filing a complaint case against the authorities in accordance with law as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up proceedings as provided under the CrPC in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
Writ Petition No.18095/2012 07.11.2012 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for the petitioner. On on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within five working days, the notice against admission as well as IA No.14034/12, an application for grant of stay against operation and effect of the impugned order of the Revisional Court, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January 2013 be issued to the respondent, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Till next hearing of this petition the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-1) is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (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 r...
Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
W.P.No.18711/2012 (R.P.Mishra versus State of MP and otheRs.07.11.2012 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to take action on the application filed by the petitioner for taking appropriate steps against the respondent No.5 on his being convicted for offence punishable under sections 341, 323/34 of the I.P.C.wherein he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1000/-. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof before the authority concerned, he shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »