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.
V.P. Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 v. p. soni vs. state HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. NO.12261/2007 V. P. SONI VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for the respondents. ___________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER (27/11 / 2012 ) Challenging the order Annexure P/5 dated 15.1.2007 passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect and directing recovery of Rs.70,000/- from the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Challenge is also made to the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority Annexures P/6 and P/7 rejecting the review and appeal of the petitioner. 2 v. p. soni vs. state 2. Petitioner is working as Sub Registrar under the administrative control of Inspector General Registration. In the year ...
Chandra Mohan Soni Vs. Smt. Mohini Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 W.P.No.18312 o27. 11.2012 Shri K.L.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without challenging any order of the Court or the Tribunal for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Court of V ADJ.Bhopal to expedite the trial of RCA No.91-A/12 and decide the same on some early date within some time bound schedule. Having heard the counsel on perusing the petition it is apparent that the same is filed on the background that inspite intimation of the appellate court, the concerning trial court and its Reader is not sending the record to the appellate court enabling such court to decide such appeal. In the available circumstances of the matter instead to give any direction for early disposal of the appeal to the aforesaid court, this petition is disposed of with a direction to such appellate court to call the record of the trial court as early as possible probably within one month f...
Anoop Singh Tiwari Vs. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 W.P.No.13542/2012 Anoop Singh Tiwari versus Board of Secondary Education. 27.11.2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State. Shri Harmeet Ruprah learned counsel for respondent Board. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the valuation of his answer sheets in the subject of Hindi (Special) in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the year 2011-12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been awarded distinction in all subjects except in Hindi (Special) in which he has been awarded 60 marks thereby depriving him of the benefits available and awarded to students who get distinction in all the subject by the State Government. The petitioner has alleged that his answer sheets has not been properly evaluated. In view of the aforesaid allegations, this Court had directed the respondent Board to produce the a...
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Aruna Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Smt. Aruna Sharma 27.11.2012. Shri Ajay Shukla for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Complaining disobedience of an order passed by this Court on 5.5.2010, in W.P.No.9084/2007, applicant has filed this application. Applicant had filed the aforesaid petition claiming promotion on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. It is the case of the applicant that in the order passed by this Court on 5.5.2010, the directions issued were to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and grant him promotion on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and if found fit for promotion, benefit be granted to the petitioner within a period of four months. The order passed by this Court reads as under: . In that view of the matter finding the reasons given by the respondents for not consideration of the case of the petition...
Abdul Razzak Vs. Smt. Archana
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.19183/12. 27.11.2012 Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 19.10.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by District Judge (East Nimar) Khandwa in M.A.No.05/2012, whereby, dismissing his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the same has been dismissed. Consequently the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-I Khandwa in Civil Original Suit No.112-A/2008, dismissing his earlier application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC has been affirmed. Initially by referring the papers placed on record the petition was argued by the petitioners counsel at length but in view of the decision of the apex Court in the matter of Ramlal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Ltd., reported in AIR 196.SC 36.in which it has been held as under:- In construing S.5 it...
J.P.Gupta and ors. Vs. Eveready Industries India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.262/2003 J.P.Gupta and others -versus Eveready Industries India LTD.and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. _________________________________________________________________ Smt.Shobha Menon, senior counsel with Shri Syed Shaukat Ali, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Brian Dsilva, senior counsel with Shri V. Bhide, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (27.11.2012) 1 : This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 28th of June, 2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Bhopal whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against the award passed by the Labour Court has been allowed and the award has been set aside on the ground that dispute was raised by the petitioners with respect to the validity of an agreement executed by the employees union with the employer with respect to the enhancement of the retrenchment compensation and it was further contended that the ...
Rupendra Gayakwad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :17032. OF 201.Rupendra Gayakwad - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned P.L. for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Shri Dhanesh Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. ORDER (29/11/2012) Challenging the order dated 12th of November, 2010 Annexure- P11 passed by the Collector Balaghat in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi to the Panchayat in question, this writ petition has been filed.2. An advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-P1, wherein applications were called for from willing candidates for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. It seems that in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, about 30 applications from willing candidates were submitted. Petitioner Shri R...
Naseem Beg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 W.P.No.18884 o27. 11.2012 Shri Ashish Rawat, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sharda Dubey, PL for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner 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 respondent No.2 to consider and decide his pending application submitted for renewal of the permit for the route of Jabalpur to Dhindhori as duration of his earlier permanent permit is going to expire on 2.1.13 and the aforesaid application is pending for consideration since 26.7.2012. The other side did not have any objection in disposing of this petition by giving appropriate direction to the authorities of respondent No.2 to consider and adjudicate the aforesaid application of the petitioner. In the aforesaid premises, instead to admit or issue any notice of this petition to the other side and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition...
Phool Chand Kasera Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :3431. OF 199.Phoolchand Kasera - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. N.K. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned P.L. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. ORDER (27/11/2012) Challenging the order dated 28.7.1997 passed by the Joint Director Public Instructions Jabalpur terminating the services of the petitioner for misconduct on the basis of certain allegations proved in a departmental enquiry, this writ petition has been filed.2. The Kundan Das Higher Secondary School, Katni is a 100% added institute and it's establishment and is functioning under the Shanti Nagar Education Society, i.e. Respondent No.4. Petitioner was working as a Principal of the said school and on certain allegations, petitioner was suspende...
Deshraj Vishvakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
ramesh pratap singh versus state 1 W.P.No.16391/2011 (s) 27/11/2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for respondents State. Shri V.K.Shukla , learned counsel for respondent No.6. To resolve the controveRs.involved in this writ petition it is absolutely necessary to go through the original records of selection. Original records are needed to see as to what was the Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment. Along with his application the petitioner has produced a Certificate indicating that he has passed the Higher Secondary Examination from M.P.Sanskrit Mandal but not petitioner has filed a rejoinder and has enclosed a certificate issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education Board, Delhi. To ensure as to what was the correct documents filed by the petitioner original records are necessary. Therefore, learned counsel for the State is directed to produce the original record. That apart, if petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »