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.
Komal Singh Rathor Vs. Dr. Smt. Aruna Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
1 Conc. No.646/2012 17.12.2012: Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4. This contempt application has been filed inter alia contending that on 13.2.2012 certain directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.7637/2011 has not been complied with and therefore, this application has been filed. Respondents who have been impleaded as parties particularly, respondents No.1 to 4 are the Principal Secretary of the Department concerned, Additional Collector, Sub Divisional Officer and Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat. Respondents No.5 and 6 are the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Matter pertains to appointment of petitioner and respondent No.6 on the post of Panchayat Karmi/ Panchayat Secretary. This Court after evaluating the averments made by the parties, came to the conclusion that appointment has to be made in accordance to the mandate of Circular dated 27.1.2006 and 13.8.2007 a...
Shri Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.21131/2012 (Shri Bai versus State of M.P.& ors.) 17.12.2012 Shri Priyank Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's objection against acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.3, who it is alleged that he is having four living children and is therefore disqualified to contest the election. The learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State appearing on advance copy submits that the petitioner had filed an objection to the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.3 on 06.12.2012, whereas the last date for scrutiny of nomination papers was 30.11.2012. It is further pointed out him that the elections have already been notified on 19-11-2012 and, therefore, no case for interference in the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...
Raghvendra Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No.7128/2012 Raghvendra Prasad Sharma versus State of MP and otheRs.17.12.2012. Shri P.K.Saxena for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State. In view of the review filed by respondent No.6 before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, petitioner is also granted liberty to raise objections in the matter before the Commissioner where the review is pending and it would be for the Commissioner to take a decision in the matter, while considering the review filed by respondent No.6. For the present, in view of the above, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Laxman Ram Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No.19042/2012 Laxman Ram versus J N K V V, Jabalpur 17.12.2012. Shri Lalit Joglekar for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Dubey for the respondent. Claim of the petitioner for payment of pension has not been finalized and it seems that due to non-vacation of quarter by the petitioner the claim was kept pending. However, a representation of the petitioner in this regard is pending before the Registrar of the University and, therefore, the Registrar of the University is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and settle his claim for grant of pensionary benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the dues shall be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period and a report submitted to this Court. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, representations Annexures P/5 and P/5-A dated 19.7.2012 and 31.7.2012, shall be taken note of and the decision taken on the basis of the same. Accordingly, the writ...
Sandip Jaiswal Vs. Raghava Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Conc Case No.828/2008 Sandip Jaiswal versus Shri Raghav Chandra 17.12.2012. None for the applicant. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 22.4.2008, in Writ Petition No.4925/2008, has not been complied with, this application has been filed. Proceedings were initiated against the applicant under section 19-B of the MP Municipal Corporation Act and in the writ petition direction issued was that copies of relevant documents be supplied to the applicant to enable him to submit proper reply and thereafter necessary action be taken. It is indicated by filing order-sheets that without giving the applicant complete copies of the documents, the matter has been heard and decided and, therefore, contempt is committed. Matter is pending since 2008 and till date none is appearing for the applicant or the non-applicant. Now, after a period of four years the position would have changed. Therefore, after a period of four weeks, I see no reason to proceed in the matter. T...
Dr.Sureshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.9021/2009 17/12/2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents/ State Government. Challenging the order Annexure-R1 dated 16.10.2009 so far as it denies consequential benefits of arrears of pay to the petitioner retrospectively from the initial date of promotion on the post of Principal Degree College and Principal Post Graduate College, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Facts in brief indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer of Zoology w.e.f.8.10.1966 and, thereafter, directly recruited on the basis of the selection conducted w.e.f.22.12.1996, he was retired from service and at the time of retirement, petitioner was Principal Degree College. A dispute arose with regard to determining the seniority of persons directly appointed to various posts like Assistant ProfessORS.Professors and Lecturers under the M.P.Educational Se...
Mani Ram Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No :20983. 2012 Mani Ram Yadav versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 17.12.2012. Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner claims regularization in service on the ground that he has been appointed as a daily wage employee and is working since 12.12.1986. Regularization is claimed on the basis of the circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of recei...
Manorama Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
W.P.No.20997/2012 17/12/2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the Education Guarantee Scheme. Subsequently, the post was re- designated as 'Guruji'. Order Annexure-P1 is the appointment order of the petitioner. It is seen from the records that a decision was taken by the State Government to appoint Guruji. Instructors and Supervisors on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. and it was also decided to conduct an examination for appointment of the Shala Shikshak Grade-III amongst the Guruji, Instructors and Supervisors in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. The rules stipulated a condition to the effect that a candidate to be entitled for appointment and qualifying the selection process should possess 40% marks for each section/paper in ...
Gangacharan Vs. Shekh Altaf
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
(1) M.A. No.4122/2009 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.4122 / 2009 Appellant Gangacharan S/o. Shri Jiyalal Jaiswal, R/o. Gandhi Ward Betul, Tehsil and District Betul (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Shekh Altaf S/o. Shekh Imam R/o. Gandhi Ward, Kothi Bazar Betul, Hall Company Garden Betul, Tehsil and District Betul (M.P.) 2. Shekh Azaz Ahmad S/o. Shekh Altaf 3. Sekh Ahfaz Ahmad S/o. Shekh Altaf No.2 & 3 R/o. Company Garden Kothi Bazaar, Tehsil and District Betul (M.P.) _______________________________________________________ Shri P.R. Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate for appellant. Shri D.K. Tripathi, Advocate for respondents. _______________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 17th day of December, 2012) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2008 whereby judgmen...
Zila Shakari Sangh Maryadit Vs. Kamla Davi Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
M.C.C.No.1280 of 2012. 17.12.2012. Shri Abhay Upadhyay for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of W.A.No.523/12 which was dismissed because of non-compliance of peremptory order dt.18.6.12 in W.A.No.523/12. This application is also barred by limitation so the applicant has filed an application - I.A.No.12276/12 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Achal Shrivastava, Advocate, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing this application. Accordingly, the delay in filing this application is condoned. Heard on M.C.C.No.1280/12. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Achal Shrivastava, Advocate, we allow this application with the following conditions :1. Applicant to make the defaults good in W.A.No.523/12 within a period of 3 weeks from today. 2- In case the defaults are made good within the aforesaid period, office to restore the appeal a...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »