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.
Arvind Kumar Joshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.A.No.1326/2012 Arvind Kumar Joshi State of M.P.& others 19.12.2012 Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri M.K.Verma, counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondent/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.17811/2012, by which the writ Court though admitted the petition, but declined to issue ad-interim writ in the matter. The learned Single Judge has also expressed an opinion that the appointment of respondent no.3 dated 20.9.2012 is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the M.P.Police Executive (Gazetted) Services and Recruitment Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) and the instructions issued by the State Government dated 3.9.2011 Annexure P-2 in the writ petition. This order has been assailed by the learned counsel for appellant on following grounds :- (i) That the respondent no.3, who before attaining the age of superannuation was investigating the matter with appellant and ...
M/S Anil Lime Works Vs. Regional Provident Fund Comm. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.6189 / 2005 (M/S.Anil Lime Works ..Vs..Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur & another) 19-12-2012 Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 29-10-2004 (Annexure P-1).8-2-2005 (Annexure P-3) and 27-6-2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the competent authority. After arguing at length the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to assail the impugned orders by filing an appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is directed that in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 30 days of obtaining the same, the same shall not be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. It is further directed...
Samir Banerji Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :21358. of 2012 Samir Banerji - V/s - State Bank of India & Another. Writ Petition No :21359. of 2012 Sanjeev Kumar Mishra - V/s - State Bank of India & Another. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In both the cases: 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 As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these petitions, they are being heard and disposed of analogously by this order. 2- For the sake of convenience, the documents and material available in the record of Writ Petition No.21358/2012 (Samir Banerjee versus State Ba...
Dr. M.K. Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21403. 2012 Dr. M.K.Dwivedi 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/4 on 11.12.2012, and as recommendation has been made by the competent authority for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/5, 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...
Bachan Singh Kunjam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No. 1860/2008 (S) 19.12.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent State. Perused the record. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents for fixing the time bound scale of the petitioner w.e.f 17.4.1999. The respondents on being noticed have filed their return; wherein it is stated that: 2. The answering respondents submit that the petition as filed by the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of substance. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is working on the post of Gramin Uddhan Vistar Adhikari since 22 years. The answering respondents submit that a scheme of time bound pay scale has been provided by the State Government by circular dtd. 19.4.1999 and as per the scheme the time bound pay scale has to be provided to the employees who are eligible for promotion and the...
Jagdish Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panchaya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
W.P.No.21299/2012 (Jagdish Bansod versus State of M.P.& ors.) 19.12.2012 Heard Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the prescribed authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat has held that the motion of no-confidence moved against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Waraseoni on 05.12.2012 has failed. It is submitted by the petitioner, who is one of the ward members of the Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni that he had moved a motion of not confidence against the president alongwith 18 other members of Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni, pursuant to which the Collector, Balaghat had appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat to preside over the meeting which was held on 05.12.2012. It is stated that in the said meeting out of the total 22 elected members of Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni, 16 voted in favour of the motion, while 6 voted against the same but...
Bhopal GraIn and Oil Seeds Merchant Association Bhopal Vs. the State o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1 W.P.No.20968/2012 Bhopal Grain & Oil Seeds Merchant State of M.P.& others Association, Bhopal 19.12.2012 Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 to 3. This petition is directed assailing voter-list Annexures P/10 to P/13 in which allegations are that the names of certain persons were included in the final voter-list while they were defaulteRs.Petitioner has not filed copy of the election programme showing preparation of the voter-list, inviting objections in the voter-list and thereafter publishing of final voter-list. No document could be shown to us in respect of filing of the objection towards the final voter list. If any person who is defaulter has been included in the final voter list, the petitioner herein may, if such an occasion arises, may challenge the elections on the aforesaid ground by filing an election petition, but in the writ jurisdiction, aforesaid disputed question cannot be examined that too at the verge of the ...
Hanuman Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21264. 2012 Hanuman Singh Gond versus State of Madhya Pradesh & ORS.19.12.2012. Shri O.P.Dwivedi for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Shahdol. Against the aforesaid action of the CEO, petitioner has remedy of appeal under section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the said remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Meera Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Writ Petition No :21452. 2012 Meera Chourasiya versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri Anoop Singh for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. As the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.2 Commissioner, Rewa Division, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, Commissioner, Rewa Division is directed to decide the appeal after hearing all concerned within a period of two months 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/-...
Hari Ram Shukla Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.1928/2002 Hari Ram Shukla, son of Shri Munnilal Shukla, aged 36 years, Occupation- agriculturist, Resident of village-Badagaon, Police Station, Devendra Nagar, Distt. Panna (MP). Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Panna (MP). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant: Shri L.N. Sakle, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K. KAUSHAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:11. 12/2012 Date of Judgment:18. 12/2012 JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.1. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »