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.
Zila Shakari Sangh Maryadit Vs. Rajesh Kumar Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
M.C.C.No.1278 of 2012. 17.12.2012. Shri Abhay Upadhyay for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of W.A.No.522/12 which was dismissed because of non-compliance of peremptory order dt.18.6.12 in W.A.No.522/12. This application is also barred by limitation so the applicant has filed an application - I.A.No.12274/12 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.1278/12. 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.522/12 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...
K.L. Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No.15954/2011 (S) K.L.Malviya versus State of MP and otheRs.17.12.2012. Shri A.K.Singh for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging a charge- sheet issued to him under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1966).During the couRs.of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel indicated that against the charge-sheet issued petitioner has submitted a representation and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to decide the representation. I am afraid such a direction cannot be issued. When a charge-sheet is issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, petitioner has to submit a reply and thereafter it is for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed in the matter. If the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied with the reply filed, he may drop the proceedings else he may appoint an Enquiry Officer, who may proceed in th...
Smt. Seema Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
1 W.P.No.18725/2012 17/12/2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt.Adv., on advance notice for respondents/State. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Krammonati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999, 02/1...
J.C. Dalvariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Writ Petition No :21115. 2012 J.C.Dalvariya versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.17.12.2012. Shri Ajay Ojha for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Conservator of Forest (Production).Sehore. A charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 and a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1966).is pending. Petitioner demanded certain documents vide application Annexure P/5 dated 6.8.2009. When the same was not supplied petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18676/2010 and the same was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner and grant him appropriate copies. Grievance of the petitioner is not that the objection of the petitioner has been rejected vide order-dated 10.9.2012 Annexure P/1 and, therefore, petitione...
Dr. Mukesh Dikshit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20921/2012 (Dr. Mukesh Dixit versus State of MP and otheRs.14.12.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has 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 petitioner or any other person aggrieved by the assignment of the elec...
Shri Ram Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20950/2012 14.12.2012: Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade III in the office of Sub Division Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur. Vide order dated 4.12.2012 petitioner has been transferred in the same capacity to the office of Pariyojna Kriyanvayan Ikai, P.W.D., Narsinghpur. Petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly contending that the said establishment where the petitioner is transferred is newly established office and petitioner cannot be transferred without his consent. Accordingly contending that petitioner's transfer to the new establishment amounts to deputation and is illegal, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents points out that new establishment is nothing but an office working under the administrative control of Public Works Department and inviting my attention to the judgment rendered by the I...
Miraj Menerals Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.9046 / 2012 (Miraj Minerals ..Vs..Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur) 14-12-2012 Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming refund of the amount deposited by them at the time of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the petition filed by him against the order passed by the Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court and, therefore, the claim of the petition for refund of the amount would be processed and decided within fifteen days. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in terms thereof with a direction to the effect that on petitioner furnishing a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the respondent/authorities, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the ...
Mahendra Anmole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20808/2012 Mahendra Anmole versus State of MP and others 14.12.2012. Shri Ravindra Bisen for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary and is aggrieved by his suspension by the CEO, Zila Panchayat. Against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, impugned in this writ petition, petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal and revision in accordance with section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and rules 3 and 5 of the Panchayat Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 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 aforesaid remedy, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Mahesh Prasad Haldkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.15214/2012(PIL) 14.12.2012 Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri A.K.Singh, Collector, Katni is present in the Court and states that he will hear the petitioner and the respondent No.4 in regard to the present dispute and pass an appropriate ordeRs.The Collector further states that he will take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. The Collector, Katni is directed to report the matter to this Court after four weeks. (S.A.Bobde) (M.C.Garg) Chief Justice Judge ravi...
Sunita Agarwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.5354 / 2012 (Sunita Agrawal ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.14-12-2012 Heard Shri Saurabh 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 respondent/police authorities as the respondent/authorities, on the complaint of the petitioner, are not lodging FiRs.Information Report against the respondents No.5 to 7. The Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 54.has categorically laid down that the remedy of petitioner in such circumstances is to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure as specified therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »