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.
Smt. Gendmati Vs. the Chief Manading Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.18643 / 2012 (Smt. Gendmati ..Vs..The Chief Managing Director, Northern Coalfields Ltd., Singrauli & otheRs.20-12-2012 Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that in spite of dispute regarding entitlement to appointment in lieu of land acquired which is pending before the competent court between the petitioner and the respondents No.6 and 7 and in spite of objections being filed by the petitioner the respondent/authorities are going ahead with the process of appointing and engaging the respondent No.7. It is submitted that the petitioner is a co-owner of the land acquired and, therefore, she is also entitled to be considered but the authorities are not doing so simply on the ground that the land was not recorded in her name. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the respondent/authorities be directed to con...
Shri Hastagiri Venkateshwara Social Welfare Society Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.16558 of 2012 Shri Hastagiri Venkateshwara State of M.P.& otheRs.Welfare society 20.12.2012 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents No.1,3,4 & 5. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.2. Petitioner sought following reliefs :- 1. That this Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to declare result of the sutdents of petitioner institution forthwith pursuant to the details furnished vide letter dated 29.5.2012 (Ann.P/5) 2. That this Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ against the respondent No.4 for his carelessness on duties for which the innocent students are being suffered.3. That this Hon. Court may kindly be passed to issue any other writ or order directions looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and be pleased to award cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner. Facts of the case ...
Prestige Institute of Engineering and Science Run by Education Society ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20838 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...
Ashish Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.18788/2012 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...
indraraj Vs. Rakesh Jaiswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.19246/2012 (Indraraj and others versus State of MP and otheRs.20.12.2012 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take up the issues raised by them at the time of the arguments in the pending suit. It goes without saying that if these issues are legally permissible to be raised and can be raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, they can be taken up by the petitioner at the time of arguments. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of as withdrawn. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Gaya Prasad Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.17943/2012 Gaya Prasad Dixit versus State of M.P.& ORS.20.12.2012 Heard Shri Manot Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the authorities on the compliant/representation filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.6 & 7. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, 3 & 4 to look into the complaint/representation of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon them by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the authorities to blindly prosecute the respondents but has only issued a direction to the authorities to look into the complaint/representation of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With the ...
Dhanraj Kamde Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No :21614. 2012 Dhanraj KaMd.versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri Kapil Patwardhan and Shri Raghvendra Kumar for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Demonstrator in Government Polytechnic College, Khirsadoh and vide order- Annexure P/1 has been transferred to Government Polytechnic College, Jaavara, District Ratlam. It is stated that petitioner is a Class III employee, his transfer has been made temporarily and pointing out certain personal difficulties and alleging malafides of respondent No.2 in transferring the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. As far as malafides against respondent No.2 is concerned, it is stated that certain complaints were made against respondent No.2, who is Principal and Controlling Officer of the petitioner and as on such complaint action has been taken against the said employee, it is stated that respondent No.2 is aggrieved and annoyed with the pet...
Hitesh Nagdev Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No.6910/2012 20/12/2012 None for the petitioner. Shir Manas Verma, Advocate for respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the relief as prayed by the petitioner have been granted by the respondent, so this petition has rendered infructuous. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) To command the respondent to declare the result of the petitioner of the Semester-I (supplementary) Roll No.50410/ Enrollment BA/5077) and II-Semester (November 2011) of LL.B.Main Examination (Roll No.357214/Enrollment not BA/5077) for which he has appeared long back, set forth. (ii) To further command the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the III semester examination. (iii) And also issue any other writ/order/direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted by Shri Manas that the result of 1st Semester (supplementary) has been declared and result of 2nd Semester (November 2011) has also been declared and ...
Narbada Prasad Jatav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No :21505. 2012 Narbada Prasad Jatav versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri D.K.Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Sahayak Adhyapak in Government Primary School, Davelkhedi under Janpad Panchayat Funda, District Bhopal and by the impugned order he has been transferred to another Primary School Agaria in the same District. Interalia contending that the transfer is to grant accommodation to respondent No.4 and petitioner has been transferred and relieved inspite of the fact that the Sankul Principal has objected to the transfer, but respondent No.4 is having political approach and the instance of political heavy-weights he is being posted, this writ petition is filed. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of malafide with regard to posting of respondent No.4. The grounds of malafide are not supported by cogent evidence or material and as other gro...
Mohd.Zeeshan Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR D.B. : Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti & Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain Writ Petition No.14213/2005 Mohd. Zeeshan Khan . Petitioner Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others ......... Respondents Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for res. nos.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5. O R D E R (20/12/2012) PER: Smt.Vimla Jain, J :1. By means of this petition the petitioner calls in question, the excess fees charged by the respondent no.4 College from the petitioner and other students, in violation of the fees Schedule fixed by the respondent no.2. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that petitioner had taken admission in the respondent no.4 College in B.D.S. course...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »