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 Gyanbati Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21110/2012 17.12.2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt.Adv.for the State. Petitioner claims merger/ absorption on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak in the institute in question. The aforesaid benefit is claimed on the ground that petitioner has completed three years of service and is qualified to be absorbed and persons similarly situated have been granted the said benefit. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat is directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of benefit already granted to similarly situated employees in District of Satna and take action in accordance to law and decide his representation by a speaking order within a period of two months. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE MRS.mishra...
Smt. Shashi Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.16418/2012 (Smt. Shashi Sharma versus State of MP ) 17.12.2012 Heard Shri Narendra 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 respondents/Police authorities to take action against the respondents No.6 and 7. It is however, apparent that the matter in respect of recording incorrect names in the revenue record has already been taken up by the petitioner which is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Itarsi. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to entertain the present petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appropriate complaint, if so required, before the Lokayukt. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Umesh Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21113/2012 (Umesh Soni & ors.versus State of MP and otheRs.17.12.2012 Heard Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents/authorities inspite of repeated orders by this court in several writ petitions including W.P.No.1536/04 directing the respondents/authorities to ensure that senior officers or persons in higher scale are not made to work in subordination of junior or officer drawing lower scale while assigning election duty the respondents/authorities are continuing to do so. On instructions, the learned Dy. A.G.for the State submits that the State has full respect and regard for the order passed by this court and shall ensure due compliance of the same in letter and spirit. He submits that in case the petitioners or any other person aggrieved by the assignment ...
Baldev Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21066/2012 (Baldev Singh & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ors.) 17.12.2012 Shri Sandeep Singh learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2012, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners against the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 have been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Nos.8 to 10 are prima facie not eligible to contest the election but the respondent returning officer has deliberately ignored the aforesaid aspect while accepting their nomination papers and have rejected the objection filed by the petitioners against the acceptance of their nomination papers and also ignoring the orders and directions issued by the Superior Authority on 07.12.2012, i.e., the Additional Director (Election).M.P.Stat...
Halle Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21024/2012 (Halle Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.17.12.2012 Heard Shri Vikas Mahawar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the police authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. It is, however, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sagar under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.which is pending decision. As the petitioner has already taken up appropriate proceedings before the court, I find no reason to entertain the present petition as the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel proceedings. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sagar. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C.as per r...
Ku. Parvati Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.20599 / 2012 (Ku. Parvati Patel..Vs...State of MP & otheRs.17-12-2012 Heard Shri Devendra Singh, Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent/police authorities as the respondent/authorities, on the complaint of the petitioner, are not taking action against the respondents No.4 to 12. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Panna, to look into the matter and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the said authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the concerned respondents/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to ...
Brijesh Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21006/2012 (Rajesh Tamrakar versus State of M.P.& ors.) 17.12.2012 Heard Shri Abhay Sharma, 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 police authorities on the compliant filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Satna to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With the aforesaid di...
Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prasad Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.7135/2008) Union of India and others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Yadav & others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioners Shri Atul Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for respondents 14 Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate O R D E R (17/12/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : What should be the criteria for fixing seniority of the incumbents brought from different seniority group in a newly created cadre, is the issue which crops up for consideration in the writ petition directed against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Jabalpur in Original Application No. 656/2005; (i) Whether the seniority should be from the date the incumbent held the substantive post in the parent cadre; (ii) whether the seniority should be from the date when the incumbent reports the ...
Anju Dongre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.13523 of 2012 (Anju Dongra versus State of MP and otheRs.17.12.2012 Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri P. Dharmadhikar, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for intervenor.W.P. No.3955/2012 (Ajay Bahadur Pathak versus State of MP and otheRs.Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the intervenor. Both the petitions relate to grant of permit on Jabalpur -Dindori Route. The petitioner in W.P.No.13523/12 has been granted permit by Regional Transport Authority, Shahdol by order dated 12.12.2011 for the Jabalpur-Dindori Route and he has been granted timing 5.20 departure from Jabalpur, 9.30 arrival at Dindori, 8.20 departure from Dindori and 12.20 arrival at Jabalpur in the return trip. The petitioner in W.P.No.13523/12 after grant of the aforesaid permit has applied for counter signing before the R.T.A.Jabapur but as the application...
Trilok Singh Patta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.20688 / 2012 (Trilok Singh Patta ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.17-12-2012 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19-9-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur whereby the record of the case has been sent back to the Court below i.e.the Collector, Dindori for a decision in the appeal pending before him that has been filed by the respondent No.4 in view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18798/2011 dated 6-4-2012 wherein the appellate authority had been directed to decide the appeal within four months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision against the order passed by the appellate authority i.e.Collector, Dindori, dated 11-11-2011 whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected, is pending before the Commissioner, Jabalpur, howe...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »