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. Kasturi Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.11269/2012 14/12/2012 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner was working as an 'Anganwadi Karyakarta' and her services have been terminated on the ground of various allegations of misconduct. The appeals and revisions filed having been dismissed, this writ petition is filed challenging the action impugned. The order dated 20/01/12 passed by the Project Officer terminating the services of the petitioner and the orders dated 26/03/12 and 29/06/12 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Records indicate that petitioner was appointed as an 'Anganwadi Karyakarta' by the Project Officer Bankhedi, Distt. Hoshangabad on 17/10/10 vide Annexure P-1. She had been working continuously for more than 12 yeaRs.When the impugned order 20/01/12 has been passed, her services have been terminated on the ground that on inspection of the centre, petitione...
Sardar Bhagat Singh Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 W.P.No.2606 o14. 12.2012 Shri Bhupesh Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for the respondent No.1 to 4. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner/ society through its President has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 24.1.12 (Annex.P/6) passed by respondent No.3 Collector in Case No.56/Food/Law/11 whereby the allotment of the fair price shop to the petitioner , has been canceled on the grounds stated in the order as well as in the petition. In the present matter, the caveat application filed on behalf of AlpShankhyak Mahila Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit, Chhatarpur filed through its President Smt Shabina is also placed before me but because such institution has not been impleaded as party in such petition, therefore, neither notice not hearing such caveator, is required in the matter. Although as per submission of Shri Yash Soni, counsel of the petitioner of W.P.No.4246/12, which...
Jahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20291/12. 14.12.2012 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure-P-2) issued under Section 248 of M.P.L.R.C.by Tahsildar Birsinghpur, District Satna in revenue case not A-68/2011-12 whereby, the petitioner has been called in the Court on 27.11.2012 to explain the questions mentioned in the notice as such notice was given to remove the encroachment from the disputed Government land stated in the same with further intimation that why fine stated in it, should not be imposed against him. Having heard the counsel, I am of the considered view that at the stage of show cause notice, the impugned proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, could not be quashed specially w...
Lakhanlal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat and Rural ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20824/2012 Lakhanlal Ahirwar versus State of MP and others 14.12.2012. Shri Sidharth Datt and Shri Ajay Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory 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/-...
Rajesh Singh Sisodiya Vs. Thakur Narendra Singh (D) Lrs. Smt. Urmila
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.9503/2011 14.12.2012 Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for respondent No.18. None for respondent Nos.3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17, although served. Service report of notices issued to respondent Nos.1, 2, 13, 15 and 18 are still awaited, as stated by the office in the note sheet dated 17.7.2012. Subsequent to that no service report has been received as the same has not been placed with the record. In the aforesaid premises, office is directed to call the service report of awaited notices through reminder within three weeks. The petitioner's counsel submits that in compliance of the order dated 31.8.2012 he has filed the requisite documents in the Registry on 17.9.2012 as document No.8964. The same is found with the record. Counsel for the respondents present did not have any objection in taking such documents on record, hence the same are taken on rec...
Smt. Shail Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Appeal No.1309.2012 14/12/2012 Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.A.G., for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State. Respondent no.3 is not served. No notice has been issued to her till date. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was transferred at Khandw, on her request, vide order dated 13/07/2012 and in place of the appellant, respondent no.3 was transferred. Respondent no.3 had challenged the transfer order before this Court in Writ Petition No.11643/2012(s) but without impleading the appellant. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 08/08/2012 had disposed of the matter by which it was directed that respondent no.2 would decide the representation of respondent no.3 and till then the respondent no.3 was permitted to continue at her present place of posting i.e.Khandwa. It was submitted that after passing of the order, the appellant who had already join at Khandwa, was relieved vide order Annexure WA/4 dated 11/1...
Narendra Singh Chouhan Vs. Manmohan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 W.P.No.20524 o14. 12.2012 Shri R.D Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, GA for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 511.12 Annex./1 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-I Hoshangabad in Co.No.30-A/12 dismissing his application filed under order 26 rule 4 of the CPC filed for recording his deposition through Commissioner. Having heard the counsel after perusing the impugned order, I have found that such application was moved on the averment that under the medeical advice the petitioner is on bed rest for one month and such application was filed on 5.9.12 and the same was decided after two months on 5.11.12 and probably the petitioner was become fit after one month. So in such premises the impugned order does not appear to be contrary to the record or the procedure. Resultantly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dis...
Ganesh Prasade Shream Vs. Additional Commissioner Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20836/2012 (G.P.Saream versus Addl. ComMr.& ors.) 14.12.2012 Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in appeal No.178/B-121/12-13, whereby the petitioner's application seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the respondent No.2, Additional Collector, Chhindwara removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 36 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner without looking into or going through the facts of the case, simply on the basis of the findings recorded by the Additional Collector. It is submitted that he had infact disclosed all the facts before the authority conce...
Liquidator, Apex Bunkar Sangh Vs. Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.2930 / 2012 (Liquidator Apex Bunker Sangh...Bhopal..versus Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Jabalpur.) 14-12-2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by recovery of Rs.2,36,00,000/-, it is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited a total sum of Rs.95 lacs and they will be depositing the remaining amount of Rs.1.25 Crores in 20 instalments. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that they have examined the proposal of the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount in instalments and have accepted the same. He further submits that subject to the formalities required to be undertaken regarding acceptance of post dated cheques etc., the respondent would release the bank account of the petitioner forthwith. In the circumstances, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the...
Smt. Sudha Vs. Smt. Mirja Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.208/12 14.12.2012. Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for petitioneRs.None for respondent no.1, though served. Shri V.Fouzdar, PL for State. Heard on IA No.7628/12, an application for taking the documents on record. The documents sought to be filed may be helpful in deciding this petition, hence by allowing IA No.7628/12, the documents are taken on record. Also heard on IA No.2362/12, an application for stay. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that no ingredients of Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are attracted and the trial is pending before Special Judge, Chhindwara in Special Case No.65/11 and if the proceedings are not stayed, then this petition will become futile. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is directed that further proceedings in Special Case No.65/11 pending before Special Judge (Atrocity).Chhindwara , so far as it relates to petitioneRs.shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. Matter will be heard finally...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »