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. Jitendra Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Dr. Jitendra Shukla versus State of MP and otheRs.29.11.2012. Shri Dileep Pandey for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 to 4. Challenging his non-selection for appointment on the post of Athithi Vidwan (Guest Lecturer) in the subject of English, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was a candidate, who submitted an application in accordance to the policies and circulars issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/1 dated 22.2.2012. As already indicated by this Court in Writ Petition No.16372/2012 (Dr. Vinot Kumar Mishra versus State of MP and others).petitioner was give preference of 10 colleges and according to him, he gave fiRs.preference to Government AdaRs.Science College, Rewa, where two posts were notified. The petitioner gave second preference to Government Thakur Ranmat Singh College, Rewa, where also two posts were notified. As per the merit list prepared, available at page 31 of Annexure P/15, petitioner secured 43.37...
Padmesh Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.15895 o29. 11.2012 Shri Subhodh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for respondents. State counsel submits that inspite her intimation she is not under receipt of the case diary from the concerning police station and seeks short adjournment to produce the same and also to file the return. The petitioner has preferred this petition for quashment of seizure memo dated 9.9.12 Annex.P/2 whereby his vehicle has been seized by respondent No.3 police station. As per submission of the petitioner counsel such vehicle has been seized under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam,1991 (in short`the Adhiniyam') and according to the provision of such Adhiniyam as also the interpretation of the same given by the full bench of this court in some matter, the Traffic Police Station ( Shahdol) has no authority to seize the vehicle under the provision of such Adhiniyam. Having heard, on perusing the seizure memo Annex.P/2, I have found that besides the p...
Samay Pal Maha Sangh Bhopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Samay Pal Maha Sangh Bhopal versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19073/2012 29/11/2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner/ Association is that the State Government has issued an order vide Annexure-P1 dated 9.9.2009 directing for granting certain training to Time KeepeRs.It is stated that in all the districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the said decision has been implemented but only in the district of Rewa, the aforesaid decision is not implemented. In this regard, the Petitioner/Association has also submitted a representation vide Annexure-P3 & P4, wherein the Superintendent Engineer has directed for compliance but no action is taken. Keeping in view the same, it is directed that Respondent No.1, Principal Secretary of the Department and Respondent No.2 Chief Engineer, Public Works Department shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and issue Samay Pal Maha Sangh Bhopal versus State & ORS.necessary orders in accordance with law within a ...
Mohd.Fazir Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.19203 o29. 11.2012 Shri Mohd Rasheet, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner, the consumer of respondent No.2 and 3, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the authorities of respondent No.2 and 3 to adjust his earlier deposited amount of Rs.3000/- into the account of bill with a further prayer for appropriate direction to revise the concerning bill of the petitioner enabling him to deposit the amount of such bill. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction against the respondents to pay him some compensation is also made. In the couRs.of arguments, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, a representation Annex.P/2 and P/3 of the petitioner are still pending for adjudication before the authorities of the respondents and besides that the objections which have been stated in the petition appears to...
Kamal Kumar Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
W.P.No.20038/2012 (Kamal Kumar Saxena versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.11.2012 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State on caveat. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by notification dated 07.11.2012 making reservations in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khargapur for the purpose of conducting an election therein in accordance with the provisions of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adiniyam, 1972. The petitioner has also challenged the notification dated 22.11.2012 by which the election programme for conducting an election at Khargapur Mandi Samiti, district Tikamgarh has been published. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Khargapur Mandi is a newly constituted Mandi, which has been carved out of the area which was previously within the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Tikamgarh. It is submitted that previously the authoriti...
Fulla Vs. Shri Kura
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Writ Petition No.18603/12. 29.11.2012 Shri Dinesh Koushal, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-defendant no.2 has field this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure-P-7) passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II Khurai in Civil Original Suit No.83A/11 whereby, allowing the application of the respondents No.19 to 21 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., the respondents no.1/plaintiff has been directed to take appropriate steps to implead them as party in the suit. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing this petition. During such arguments, I am apprised by the counsel that in connection of same property earlier a Civil Suit was also filed. The same has been decided upto the FiRs.Appeal and against such judgment of FiRs.Appellate Court, the S.A.No.1018/99, is pending before this Court. He also apprised me that the respondents No.19, 20 and 21 have ...
Prem Narayan Mishra Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.12702/2010(s) Prem Narayan Mishra & otheRs.-Versus- The Principal Secretary, State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.12703/2010(s) Atul Kumar Mishra & others -Versus- The Principal Secretary,State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.3....[W.P.No.12702/2010(s)].Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Trivedi, for the respondent No.3. Smt. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, for t...
Mukund NaraIn Trivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.18517/2010(s) Mukund Narain Trivedi -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.12703/2010(s) Atul Kumar Mishra -Versus- The Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.11505/2006(s) Mukund Narain Trivedi -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.12702/2010(s) Prem Narayan Mishra -Versus- The Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.14681/2010(s) Rajeev Kumar Mishra -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. 2 W.P.No.17421/2010(s) S.S. Uddey -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. W.P.No.17423/2010(s) Preetam Pal Titare -Versus- The State of M.P. & others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Trivedi, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.5,6, 7 & 8. ....[W.P.No.1...
Ghanshyam Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.15424/2012 29.11.2012. Shri Navneet Dubey appeared on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No.4/ Additional Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.03/A/6-A/11-12 whereby in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Collector, Bhopal by virtue of Section 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (for short the Code) the name of present petitioners have been directed to be deleted from the revenue record, the same was recorded as Bhoomiswmi on account of some earlier order of Collector granting patta to them. In the couRs.of the argument on admission, on asking the petitioneRs.counsel that the impugned order being passed under Section 109 and 110 of Code is appealable under Section 44 of the Code then how this petition could entertained by this Court unless the remedy available under...
Gram Panchayat Jamunhai Panna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 W.P.No.19039 o27. 11.2012 Shri Abhishek Arjariya, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sharda Dubey, PL for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner Gram Panchayat Jamunhai, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent No.4 and 5 to consider and adjudicate its application dated 4.10.12 Annex.P/7 within a period of one month. Pursuant to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents not to make any construction over the disputed land is made. In the couRs.of the arguments on asking the petitioner counsel how the disputed factual matrix which are involved in the petition could be adjudicated by this court under the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on which, he made his limited prayer for appropriate direction to the authorities of respondent No.4 and 5 to consider and decide its pending represe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »