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.
Mohammad Ovesh Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.21256/2012 Mohd. Ovesh versus Municipal Corporation 19.12.2012 Heard Shri Aditya Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent Corporation to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner seeking demolition of house nos.392, 393, 393/1, 393/2, 393/3, 394, 395, 396 and 396/2 situated in Subhash Ward, Subhash Chowk, Katni on the ground that the property belongs to the petitioner and requires to be demolished as it is more than 100 years old and may fall at any time and being in a dilapidated condition steps be taken under section 309 and 310 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreso as the petition filed by the petitioner is also not maintainable on the ground 2 ...
R.C. Tiwari @ Ram Chandra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21198. 2012 R.C.Tiwari @ Ram Chandra Tiwari versus State of Madhya Pradesh & ORS.19.12.2012. Shri P. Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade I in the Directorate of Kisan Kalyan and Krishi Vikas, Rewa and by the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 he has been transferred to Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner, due to brain haemorrhage suffered by him. The grounds raised by the petitioner are his personal inconveniences and on such consideration judicial review of an administrative order is not permissible. As representation filed by the petitioner is already pending, the competent authority is directed to consider the representation in accordance with law 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 as ...
Shanti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.21068/2012 (Shanti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh versus State of MP and otheRs.19.12.2012 Heard Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 01.12.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa whereby he has clarified his previous order dated 20.11.2012, to the extent that he had extended stay granted to the petitioner up to 20.12.2012 by mistake and has recalled the same on an application filed by the respondent No.5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner by order dated 20.11.2012 had extended the interim stay granted to the petitioner for a period of 30 days and listed the case for further orders on 20.12.2012, however, without any notice or intimation to the petitioner on an application filed by the respondent No.5 the matter was suddenly taken up by the Additional Commissioner on 01.12...
Ojaswini Samdarshi Nyas, Bhopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.21347 of 2012 (Ojaswini Samdarshi Nyas versus State of MP and otheRs.19.12.2012 Shri A. Rareshwar Rao, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Anshuman Singh, counsel for respondents No.2 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 11.12.12 Annex.P/6 passed by respondent No.2 Addl. Commissioner whereby their applications for grant of permission to hold the exhibition at some alleged place of Jabalpur, has been refused. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, I am apprised by the counsel of respondent No.2 that the impugned order is made appealable under section 403(2) (b) of the Municipal Corporation Act and the petitioners may file the statutory appeal under such provision for setting aside the impugned order. Having heard the petitioners counsel at length, in view of availability of alternative remedy to file the appe...
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :21359. of 2012 Sanjeev Kumar Mishra - V/s - State Bank of India & Another. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate, with Shri C.A.Thomas for the petitioneRs.Shri R.N.Singh, Senior Advocate; Shri Rohit Arya, Senior Advocate; and, Shri Ashish Shroti, Counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 19/12/2012 For the reasons stated in the common order passed today in Writ Petition No.21358/2012 (Samir Banerji versus State Bank of India and another).this petition is also dismissed on similar terMs.2- A copy of the order passed in Writ Petition No.21358/2012 be retained in this file. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) JUDGE Aks/-...
D.K. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21423. 2012 D.K.Gupta versus State of Madhya Pradesh & ORS.19.12.2012. Shri Atul Choudhari for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Considering the fact that departmental appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P/8 is pending before respondent No.2, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Vinod Dixit Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No 2922/2004 (Vinot Dixit versus State of MP and otheRs.19.12.2012 Shri Sitaram Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to provide armed guard as he apprehends threat from Santosh Singh, Balveer Singh and Tinku @ Farari Raja. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that during the pendency of the petition Santosh Singh and Tinku Raja @ Farari Raja have died and Balbir Singh is lodged in a jail in respect of several criminal case including Crime No.133/01 which has been registered against him on the complaint of the petitioner. It is further stated that previously an armed guard was provided to the petitioner till the time the accused persons in crime No.133/01 were not arrested, however, as Balbir Singh has been arrested, the armed guard has been withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned government advocate ...
Ramesh Chand Shrivastava Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No. 11217/2009 19.12.2012 Shri U.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for respondent State. Petitioner, working as Superintendent, in the office of Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, retired on 31.7.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was detected with the ailment of hypertension and Ischaemic heart disease for that he underwent treatment at Neaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. That, on 19.8.2008 the physical condition of the petitioner deteriorated, therefore, had to rush to Wockhardt Hospital, Nagpur; wherein he underwent corinary artery byepass surgery on 28.8.2008. Petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.2,02,784/ towards medical expenses. That, after recovering from his illness petitioner sought reimbursement of medical expenses from the State Government whereon 15.4.2009 he was i...
Abdul Khalid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :20622. 2012 Abdul Khalid versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.19.12.2012. Smt. Durgesh Thapa for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Respondent No.3 The Chief Engineer, Ganga Kachar Water Resources, is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner with regard to joining on the post in pursuance to the compassionate appointment granted and in case petitioners verification and other procedure are complete, permit him to join duties or else pass an appropriate order 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/-...
Bhopal Degree College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.21187/2012 19.12.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. A short prayer is made by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 be directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 16.07.2012. On raising such contention, Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 3 has submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has already been decided on 11.12.2012 and he has handed over a copy of the same to the counsel for the petitioner. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to challenge the order, if advised so. Prayer is allowed. This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »