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.
Noharlal Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.13873/2011 19/12/2012 Shri O.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Respondent No.3 by which appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Challenging the same order dated 27.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-P4, various writ petitions were filed before this Court and one such writ petition was filed by one Shri Gauri Shankar Baiga being W.P.No.14652/2011(s) and vide order dated 13.9.2012, a Bench of this Court has quashed the impugned order and directed for reinstatement of the similarly situated employee with back-wages. Keeping in view the aforesaid order and the reasons indicated therein and finding the petitioner to be similarly situated, for the reasons and consideration already made by this Court in W.P.No.14652/2011(s) on 13.9.2012, this writ petition is also allowed. The order impugned Annexure-P4 dated 27.11.2010 is quashed a...
Smt.Sulochana Bagri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.21134/2012 Smt. Sulochana Bagri versus State of M.P.& Ors 19.12.2012 Shri Praveen Verma learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal, He, however, submits that till the petitioner files such an appeal and obtains interim orders on the application for stay, the respondents be directed not to take any coercive steps towards recovery from the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the petition filed by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn, it is observed that in case the petitioner does take up proceedings against the impugned order within fifteen days alongwith a copy of the order passed today, a copy of the petition and an application for stay, the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner till 2 W.P.No.21134/2012 Smt. Suloc...
Smt. Santwana Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
19.12.2012 W.P.No.17437/2012 Shri Satyendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the intervenORS.W.P.No.20766/2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The petition W.P.No.20766/2012 has been filed by the petitioners seeking police protection on his having entered into marriage with the missing person Deepti Tripathi while W.P.No.17437/2012 has been filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus seeking production of the missing person. The missing person has been produced before this court who states that she has already married Saket Kumar Gupta and is living with him on her own free will and that she is already a major. In view of the aforesaid statement, I find no reason to issue any direction in either of the petitions, which are accordingly disposed of by recording the statement of Deepti Tripathi. (R....
Jabalpur Vidyut Pramandal Karamchari Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. Chair ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1....W.A.No.29 o19. 12.2012 Shri Amit Shukla, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Arup K. Das, Counsel for the respondents. Intervener present in person. It is submitted by the appellant that inspite of the order dated 25.4.2012, the appellant has not been provided electricity connection and it has been denied merely on the ground that the ownership certificate could not be filed. That because there is dispute between two societies so the appellant is not in a position to produce ownership certificate. However, appellant undertakes to make payment of all the electricity dues including the payment of security and executing an agreement in this regard with the respondents No.1 and 2. Though the prayer is opposed by the respondents, but considering the earlier order dated 25.4.2012, we find that the aforesaid order deserves to be clarified and in continuation to earlier order dated 25.4.2012, we direct thus :- 1. As an interim measure, the respondents are directed to provide electricity conne...
Dr. R.D. Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21370. 2012 Dr. R.D.Dubey versus State of Madhya Pradesh & ORS.19.12.2012. Ms.Malti Dadariya for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Considering the fact that petitioner has already submitted a representation with regard to the transfer vide Annexure P/3 on 11.12.2012, and as recommendation has been made by the competent authority for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/4, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made and decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE A...
Bhandarilal Yadav Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
CON.C.No.1963/2012 19.12.2012 Shri P.K.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for the respondent. This contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of order dated 15.12.2011 passed in W.P.No.20892/2011 by which a Division Bench disposed of the matter finally with certain directions. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a review petition bearing No.9/2012 has been filed in which the Division Bench on 07.12.2012 has stayed the operation of the order dated 15.12.2011 passed in W.P.No.20892/2011. He has shown us a copy of the order dated 07.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner also received the said order. As the order dated 15.12.2011 has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, no further action is required. The proceedings are closed. This contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
MCRC No.14170/2012 19.12.2012 Shri R.K.Samaiya, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard on the point of admission. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by applicant against the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by SDO giving the reference of the order dated 6.11.2012 to lodge FIR against applicant u/s 3 / 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till not no FIR has been registered. Since no FIR has been registered on the request of learned counsel for the applicant it is directed that concerned Collector and SDO Tikamgarh shall consider the contention of the applicant Manager, Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maydt. Digoda, Tahsil Jatara District Tikamgarh whether some prima facie case is there or not with this direction this petition is disposed of. Meanwhile it is also directed that no coercive steps be taken against the applicant. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.DIDDIQUI) Judge ...
Virendra Mohan Chourasia Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.17520/2006 (V.M.Chourasiya versus U.O.I.& ors.) 19.12.2012 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the respondent authorities dated 20.11.2006 under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. Apparently the issue raised by the petitioner involves disputed question of facts, which requires to be adjudicated by the authorities after taking all facts and facts into consideration and cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up the proceedings before the respondents pursuant to the show cause notice. It goes without saying that the authorities after considering the rep...
Alok Pratap Singh Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.2802/2004 19.12.2012 Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Shekhar Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.A.G.for State of M.P.Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Kunal Thakre and Ms.Devika, Counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.6. Shri Nitin Sambre, learned counsel with Shri Ambarish Joshi, Counsel for State of Maharashtra. Shri Manot Sharma, Shri Harmeet Ruprah and Shri Pramod Sahu, Counsel for intervenORS.Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior advocate informs this Court that on 10.12.2012, the matter could not be listed before the Apex Court. However, as per information from the Registry of the Supreme Court, it is intimated that next date of listing is 3.1.2013. Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, learned counsel for petitioner at this stage has submitted that only an issue in respect of disposal of toxic waste is before the Apex Court and except this issue, other two issues may b...
Gopi Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.21353/2012 Gopi Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.19.12.2012 Shri U.S.Jaiswal learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Durgesh Singrore, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, on caveat. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur wherein, while the order passed by the authorities concerned have been affirmed, the Collector, Dindori has been directed to immediately initiate proceedings under section 36(3) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993, against the respondent no.5 and pass orders therein after hearing her in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.5 had previously been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khamha, Janpad Panchayat Samnapur, Tehsil and District Dindori but was removed from the said post by the Sub Divisional Officer by order date...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »