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.
Ramanuj Kushwaha Vs. Brijbhan Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20744/2012 14.12.2012 Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 16.10.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Sidhi in C.O.S.No.82-A/10 whereby their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of the Commissioner to call the Commissioner's report of the disputed place has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have perused the impugned order alongwith the papers placed on record, so also the case law in the matter of Chhunnilal versus Ramchandra reported in 2002 (1) M.P.Weekly Notes 105 stated in the impugned order. In the available scenario, I have not found any error, infirmity, perversity or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned, so it does not require any interference at this stage, sp...
Urmila Sahu Vs. Smt. Kiriti Sharma [Vishwakaram]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.17462/2012 14.12.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Ist ADJ.Chhatarpur whereby his application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, for dismissal of aforesaid election petition in the lack of proper particulars of allegations in the pleadings as well as in the absence of proper verification has been dismissed. In view of earlier order of the trial court dated 7.9.2010 (Ann. P-7) whereby the application till some extent of some averments with the same prayer filed by the respondent No.1 elected President of the Municipality has been dismissed, on asking the petitioner's counsel that in such premises what error has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order Annexure P-1, specially when the present petitioner is not contesting candidate, then on what basis he...
Smt. Ram Kali Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20719/2012 14.12.2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that she was appointed on daily wages in the year 1985, but was regularised in the year 1990. Since she has completed the requisite years of services without any promotion, the fiRs.Kramonnati was extended to the petitioner and pay fixation etc., have been done and the matter has been referred to the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts for approval of fixation of pay of the petitioner after grant of Kramonnati. However, since the approval has not been granted, the petitioner has not been paid the actual benefit of Kramonnati and the arrears of salary has not been paid to her, therefore, she has approached this Court. In case the petitioner was regularised in the year 1990, she was entitled to be granted the benefit of Kramonnati with effect from the year 2002. If the action in tha...
All India Womens Conference Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.3566/2006 14.12.2012 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Anshuman Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent No.3. Heard. We find that the earlier orders of this Court dated 8.2.2007 and 10.11.2009 have not been fully complied with. Having regard to the nature of the litigation, we consider it appropriate to direct the authorities to perform following actions forthwith: PARKING: The authorities shall demarcate the certain areas to be used as parking place. However, Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the traffic police do not take any steps whatsoever to ensure that the vehicles were parked in these places. We accordingly direct the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to ensure that the parking places are fully utilized by taking whatever action, which may be necessary. The Superintendent of Police shall file action taken report in this regard on 8....
Balaganj Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P No.20887 o14. 12.2012 Shri P. Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Considering the arguments of the petitioner's counsel that this petition is filed against the order dated 4.12.2012, Ann. P-6 whereby the fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled against which the petitioner did not have any remedy of appeal because as per provision of M.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2009 the Collector is the appellate authority of the impugned matter and aforesaid order Ann. P-6 has been passed by the Collector- respondent No.2 and, therefore there is no option with the petitioner except to approach this court for redressal of his dispute against such order, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, let notice against admission of this petition as well as interim relief, returnable by fixing a date in the last week of ...
Melaram Bargale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.11938 / 2012 (Melaram Bargale ..Vs..State of M.P.& another) 14-12-2012 Heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a limited relief of direction to the respondent/Municipal Council, ItraRs.to consider and decide the petitioner's application praying for issuing a no objection certificate for the purposes of obtaining an electricity connection. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh application before the respondent/authorities along with a copy of order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months thereafter by passing a reasoned order thereon. It is made cl...
Tejmani Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.13860/2012 14.12.2012: Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is a daily wages employee and has filed this writ petition challenging his termination vide order dated 6.3.2012 Annexure P/1. From the records it is seen that petitioner was appointed as a daily wages employee and due to his involvement in a criminal case for offences under Section 13(1)(d).13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 130B, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of IPC petitioner has been put to trial in the Court of Special Judge, Sidhi and vide judgment dated 29.12.2004 petitioner has been convicted. Due to conviction of the petitioner for various offences and imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine ranging from 10,000/- to Rs.5000/- for different offences, petitioner has been terminated in view of Rule 19(1) read with Rule 19(2) and Rule 10(9) of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ru...
Ramkesh Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20884/2012 14.12.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak to the Panchayats. Against the order of appointment to the post in the Panchayat, petitioner has remedy of an appeal as contemplated under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995. As statutory appeal is available under the Act of 1995, a writ petition directly before this Court bypassing the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available as per the statutory provision of the scheme, this petition is disposed of. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Prakash Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
---1--- W.P.No.13467/2011 (PIL) M.C.C.No.2795/2006 14.12.2012 Shri Amit Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Addl. Advocate General for State. Shri Mhan Sausarkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Sr.Counsel with Shri Parag Shrivastava, Amicus Curiae. Shri Parag Shrivastava and Shri Udyan Tiwari, Advocates are also appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist learned Sr.Counsel Shri Rajendra Tiwari. Shri S.K.Singhai, Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Narsinghpur, has appeared and has undertaken to this Court to make the road from Mohegaon to Khawasa 100% motorable by 20th December, 2012. Shri Singhai, however, stated that with regard to a small length of road of about 500 meters on both sides of Toll Plaza near Khawasa, it is not possible to carry out any work thereon due to heavy congestion of traffic, he, therefore, seeks Police assistance to enable him to carry out the said work. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General assures this Court that the...
Vishwanath Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 W.A.No.1316/2012 Vishwanath Mishra State of M.P.& others 14.12.2012 Shri A.R.Lakhera, Counsel for appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.3878/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by an order which reads thus:- Petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, applied for certified copy of work cash book for the period from 1.1.02 to 30.11.08 from Executive Engineer, E/M, Light Machinery, Tubewell and Gate Division, Rewa. On being denied, the petitioner filed an appeal before State Information Commissioner who by order dated 8.6.10 directed the departmental authorities to supply the certified copies of the document sought. Grievance raised by the petitioner vide this petition is that inspite of the order dated 18.6.10, the respondents have not supplied the documents. The documents on record however, reveals that, the petitioner was required to appear in the office of Executive Engineer, E/...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »