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.
Madhav Proudyogiki Mahavidyalaya Vs. All India Coucil for Technical Ed ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.21268 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...
Jai Narayan Shiksha Samiti Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 2( ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20018 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.20028 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...
Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No :21411. 2012 Shiv Kumar Tiwari versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner proposing a major penalty on the basis of a finding of guilt recorded in the Departmental Inquiry, petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the show-cause notice. It is seen from the records that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, thereafter an ex-parte inquiry has been conducted and an inquiry report given. The inquiry report is forwarded to the petitioner and he is directed to show-cause as why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. Challenging the same, petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that at this stage a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Only a show-cause notice has been issued to the...
Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.A.No.967/2012 Manot Kumar Tiwari The State of M.P.& others 19.12.2012 This matter has been taken up suo motu for correction of typographical errors in order dated 10.9.2012 in this appeal. In the quoted order of the Single Bench, in 1 st para in 1st line, 'the' has been typed twice, one 'the' be deleted. At page 2 of the order in 4th and 2nd lines from the bottom in place of 'jointed', word 'joined' be substituted. At page 3 of the order in 8th line from the top, in place of word 'joint', word 'join' be substituted. At page 3 of the order, in 3rd para in 4th line, in place of word 'appellant', word 'respondent' shall be substituted. At page 4 of the order, in 5th line from the top, in place of 'jointed', word 'joined' be substituted. At page 4 of the order, in 2nd para, in place of words 'material fact was', words 'material facts were' shall be substituted. The aforesaid corrections are carried out in the Court itself. Issue fresh copy of the order by the Registry to the parties. W...
Dr.D.J.Brahmachari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No. 3998/2008 (S) 19.12.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent State. Petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Public Health and Family welfare vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to sanction higher scale of Rs.10,00032515200 w.e.f October 2002 as per Kramonnati Scheme and pay arrears to the petitioner along with interest thereon at the rate of 12 % per annum. It is urged that despite of the representation preferred on 24.1.2007, no action has been taken by respondents. No reply is filed by the respondent State despite of the fact that the matter is pending since 2008. Therefore, instead of further dwelling upon the merit of the matter the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to dwell upon the representation of the petitioner claiming highe...
Gyaneshwar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21172. 2012 Gyaneshwar Tiwari versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.19.12.2012. Shri Aditya Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another on 24.7.2012. Now, by the impugned order-dated 19.10.2012, transfer of the petitioner is cancelled and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court challenging the same. Considering the fact that representation filed by the petitioner is still pending, respondent No.2 The Collector of the District concerned, is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on his representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the matter is not decided, status quo with regard to working of the petitioner shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (...
Om Prakash Namdeo Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.7832 / 2005 (Om Prakash Namdeo & another..Vs.Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur & otheRs.19-12-2012 Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ Corporation. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.4 is making construction on a plot adjacent to the petitioneRs.property without obtaining proper building permission or sanction as required by the provisions of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and without complying with the provisions of M.P.Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation submits that the complaint of the petitioners in this regard shall be examined and decided in accordance with the provisions of law. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that on the petitioners filing a fresh complaint/representation before the res...
Rampal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.A.No.1371/2012 Rampal Ahirwar State of M.P.& others 19.12.2012 Shri Manot Mishra, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7.11.2012 in W.P.No.18917/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the appellant against the transfer order was dismissed. It was second round of litigation, earlier Writ petition No.11507/2012 was filed against transfer order dated 14.7.2012 which was disposed of finally by an order that the appellant may file a representation against the transfer order. Aforesaid representation was rejected vide order Annexure P/6 dated 25.10.2012. Learned Single Judge, considering the matter, found that no case is made out for judicial review in the administrative order, rejecting the representation against transfer of appellant from Municipal Council, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur to...
Amar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1....W.A.No.1329 of 2012 Amar Singh State of M.P.& other 19.12.2012 Shri Gopal Singh, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.10.2012, by which a writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of the representation filed by the appellant in compliance of earlier order passed by the writ Court, was dismissed. It was a second round of litigation. Though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is suffering from brain tumor and he is entitled to remain posted at his present place of posting but once the representation for ventilation of the grievances has been rejected by the competent authority, no further action is required. In earlier round of litigation, the writ Court had not interfered in the transfer order but permitted the appellant to file representation before the competent authority. not the competent authority has considered the representation and rejected t...
Ravi Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.21008/2012 Ravi Pratap Singh State of M.P.& another 19.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents. Petitioner has challenged two orders passed by respondent No.2; first, order Annexure P/1 dated 17.1.2011 by which petitioner was suspended from the couRs.and second, show cause notice Annexure P/2 dated 20.11.2012 by which petitioner has been asked to show cause why his admission may not be cancelled. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the show cause notice is based on a report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and for filing a reply of this, petitioner is required to go through the report, but the aforesaid report has not been supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.2 may be directed to serve copy of the aforesaid report, so that petitioner may submit reply to show cause notice to the respondent No.2. Considering aforesaid, we ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »