Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Sushri Jyotsana Nandan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.A.No.1410/2012 Sushri Jyotsana Nandan State of M.P.& another 20.12.2012 Shri Ram Pal, counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.11.2012 in W.P.No.19748/2012(S).by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of rejection of representation filed against the transfer order, filed in compliance of earlier order of High Court dated 5.9.2012 in W.P.No.14293/2012(S).Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant is a divorcee and except the father of appellant, there is no other person to take care of her. The mother of appellant has also died long back. It is submitted that as per the policy decision of the State Government as contained in para 9.19 of the transfer policy, the appellant could have been transferred to her home District. It is further submitted that on the aforesaid ground transfer order may be quashed by entertaining this appeal. From the perusal o...
Rajnish Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.16718/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA respondents/State. This order shall decided W.P.No.15522/12, W.P.No.16168/12, W.P.No.16718/12, W.P.No.17128/12, W.P.No.17350/12 and W.P.no.18788/12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controveRs.of this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13890/12-Ku.Vidhya Parashar versus State of M.P.& others decided on 20.9.2012. It is further submitted that the aforesaid position is not disputed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).these cases may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).The order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra) may be referred which reads thus:- A prayer is made by the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in this case is identical to the facts of Writ Petition No.15025/2011 Smt.Vartika Tripathi versus State of M.P.decided on 7.8.2012 and similar directions may be issued in the case. Shri P.K.K...
Shri Balaji Institute of Technology and Management Vs. All India Counc ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20219 o20. 12.2012 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course. It is further submitted that earlier a Division Bench had passed an order by which permission to run the couRs.of Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) CouRs.was stayed but that order has been modified and clarified by the Division Bench so at present there is no bar for applying or for extension of the course. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for extension and/or for fresh grant of approval in respect of Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that subject to decision of this petition, the respondents are ready to accept the aforesaid application. In view of the...
Keshu Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.A.No.1400/2012 Keshu Singh Rajput State of M.P.& others 20.12.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, Counsel for appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.19775/2012(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was disposed of finally with a direction to the appellant to avail a remedy of appeal against order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the C.E.O.Janpad Panchayat, Samnapur. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the order is not appealable under the M.P.Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 because the service of the appellant was governed by the M.P.Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and against such an order, directing handing over of the charge and attaching the appellant in the office is not an appealable order under Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules. It is submitted that this appeal may be admitted on the a...
Amit Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No :21497. 2012 Amit Kumar Khare versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri Swapnil Ganguly for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner was a candidate, who had participated in the selection process initiated in January 2010, for appointment on the post of Ksharsootra Technician, the result of the selection was declared on 17.6.2012, in which petitioner was shown to be selected. Thereafter, when nothing was done, petitioner represented and when no reply was received not was the petitioner appointed, he has approached this Court. In view of the above, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to look into the matter and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt. Malti Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.7268/2011(S) Smt. Malti Choubey -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER ( .12.2012) The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a direction against the respondents to grant the benefit of family pension to the petitioner on account of untimely death of her husband, who was working as Timekeeper in the work charged contingency establishment of respondents, after his regularisation. It is contended that initially the husband of the petitioner was engaged as a muster roll educated labour with effect from 1.12.1979 under the respondent No.3. He was continuously working when his case was screened for the purposes of regularisation in the work charged contingency establishment of the respondents and v...
Mohammad Iqlakh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
R.P.No.964/2012 (Mohd. Iqlakh versus State of the MP and otheRs.20.12.2012 Heard Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this application seeking review of order dated 23.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.18700/2012. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this court the police authorities have issued a notice to the petitioner and are proposing to add him as an accused in the charge sheet that is being filed before the competent court. It is stated that prior to passing of the impugned order petitioner's wife and his child were already being prosecuted which fact had been suppressed and therefore, the impugned order be recalled and reviewed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that this court had only disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein, who is respondent in the present application asking the police authorities to look into the the complaint of the respond...
Bala Prasad Vais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Appeal No.1027/2012 20/12/2012 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents-State. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants being daily rated employees can not be transferred in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Tiwari versus Madhya Pradesh Text Book Corporation and other (W.P.No.1967/2003).Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Government Advocate is directed to file reply in the matter within two weeks. Be listed for hearing along with W.A.No.1119/2012 for analogous hearing. Till next date of hearing, status-quo as on today in respect of the posting of appellants be maintained by the respondents. CC as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju...
Rishiraj Singh Memorial Welfare Society Vs. the Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20028 o20. 12.2012 Shri Sumit Nema, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents. Shri Lal prays for 10 days time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 10.1.2013 alongwith W.P.20018 of 2012 and other identical matters for analogous hearing. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the tax for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11, in respect of which appeals along with the applications for stay are stated to be pending before the respondent No.3. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Abhilasha Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.17128/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA respondents/State. This order shall decided W.P.No.15522/12, W.P.No.16168/12, W.P.No.16718/12, W.P.No.17128/12, W.P.No.17350/12 and W.P.no.18788/12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controveRs.of this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13890/12-Ku.Vidhya Parashar versus State of M.P.& others decided on 20.9.2012. It is further submitted that the aforesaid position is not disputed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).these cases may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).The order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra) may be referred which reads thus:- A prayer is made by the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in this case is identical to the facts of Writ Petition No.15025/2011 Smt.Vartika Tripathi versus State of M.P.decided on 7.8.2012 and similar directions may be issued in the case. Shri P.K.K...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »