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.
Jai Singh (D) Lrs. Sarvesh Singh Tomar Vs. Mandir Shri Ram Janki,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P No.1428 o14. 12.2012 Shri Awinash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The case is listed for admission and consideration of various other IAs partly. Initially instead to argue the case on admission, petitioneRs.counsel prayed to hear this petition on IA No.1286/12, an application to substitute the legal representatives of the petitioner No.1 (b) on record as he has passed away during the pendency of the petition, on which respondents' counsel submits that in view of some findings of the Board of Revenue in the impugned order Annexure P-1, such question is also to be examined in the matter while considering the question of admission and sustainability of such order of Board of Revenue and such application could not be considered on merits unless the petition is heard on admission. In view of such submissions of the parties after perusing the aforesaid application as well as the impugned order, I deem fit to...
Raja Ram Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.20038/2011(s) Rajaram Patel -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.20041/2011(s) Ramlal Patel -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.20043/2011(s) K.P.Singh Parihar -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.20045/2011(s) Laxmi Kant Patel -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.20046/2011(s) R.K.Verma -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.2 W.P.No.20047/2011(s) P.K.Nigam -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.20048/2011(s) Lal Bahadur Singh -Versus- The State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents. ORDER (14.12.2012) This order will also govern the disposal of W.P.No.20041/2011(s).W.P.No.20043/2011(s).W.P.No.20045/2011(s).W.P.No.20046/2011(s).W.P.No.20047/2011(s) and W.P.No.20048/2011(s).as the common question is raised in all these writ petitions and all petitions have been hear...
Naveen Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.14738 of 2012 Naveen Dubey Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioner : Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Advocate. For Respondents/ : Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Adv. State ORDER (14.12.2012) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the respondent no.2 Collector District Burhanpur, in revenue case No.10-A/67/11-12, whereby under Rule 53 (5) of M.P. Minot Mineral Rules 1996 (hereinafter in short the Rules of 1996), the penalty of Rs. 8,64,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner on account of Transportation of Minerals without any license or permission of the licensing authority. In addition to it, the prayer to hold that the Collector has no jurisdiction under Rule 53 of the aforesaid Rules 1996 to impose such penalty is also made.2. Having heard on the question of admiss...
Puran Lal Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20684/2012 14.12.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The sole relief which the petitioner seeks in the present petition is direction to the respondents to decide the representation regarding higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.that petitioners are retired UDT and though they were entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- they were paid pay in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-. It is submitted that though representation for higher pay scale was made to the Competent Authority, but the same has not been decided as yet and the petitioners have been deprived of senior pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. It is accordingly, urged that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners in respect of higher pay scale of Rs.5500-1...
Rajesh Kumar Niranjan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.15543/2011 14.12.2012: Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned counsel for respondent State. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The only dispute not subsisting for adjudication is as to whether the petitioner is disqualified from seeking appointment because he is related to the Sarpanch Shri Karan Singh as nephew. Smt. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the initial process of appointment was undertaken in the year 2008 and when the original resolution dated 13.7.2008 was passed appointing respondent No.5 as Panchayat Karmi and when the cause of action accrued to the petitioner, at that point of time there was no relationship between the petitioner and Sarpanch and Shri Karan Singh was not Sarpanch at that point of time. If that be so, this disqualification alleged by respondent No.5 may not be available. Accordingly, Smt. Ruprah is granted...
Jagdish Shanti Hotels Pvt. Ltd.Khajuraho Chhatarpur Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20854/2012 (Jagdish Shanti Hotels PVT.LTD.versus State of MP and otheRs.14.12.2012 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy and Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on advance copy. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Health Service, Bhopal by which the petitioner product Therapeutic Food F-75 and F-100 which was supplied by the petitioner to the Government of MP has been rejected on the ground that it is below the standard and specification prescribed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has imported the said product from the American Challenge Dairy Product Inc. and is a product that has specifically been manufactured for the children suffering from malnutrition. It is stated that the said product was accepted by the respondents pursuant to which th...
Narendra Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20933/2012 (N.P.Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.14.12.2012 Heard Shri V.P.Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this petition on account of the fact that the petitioner's application under section 36 of the M.P.Gram Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraja Adhiniyam, 1993 filed by him against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bilaspur Tahsil Chandiya District Umariya is not being considered and decided by the competent authority i.e.the respondent No.2, the Collector, Umariya. He prays for a direction to the Collector to do so. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.appearing for the State on advance copy submits that the application of the petition shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Looking to the aforesaid statement made by the learned Government Advocate for the State, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed with a direction to t...
Hargovind Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Village Development ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20745/2012 Hargovind Ahirwar versus State of MP and others 14.12.2012. Shri Ashish Kurmi for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary and it seems that due to his arrest and registration of criminal case against him under sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, he was confined to jail and thereafter has been released on bail. Grievance of the petitioner is that after his release from jail, he is not being taken back in duty and charge is not given to him even though the Gram Panchayat has written a letter to the CEO of the Zila Panchayat, no action has been taken, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Petitioner is an employee of the Panchayat and without following the due process of law he cannot be given the charge or taken back in service. Petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal and revision under the Statutory Appeal and Revision Rules before the Colle...
Arun Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20936/2012 14.12.2012 Shri A. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 19.11.2012, (Ann. P-8).passed by the District Magistrate, under Section 3/5 of the M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, in short The Adhiniyam. and thereafter the petitioner has been externed for one year to enter in the boundaries of District Singrauli and adjoining districts. In the couRs.of arguments in view of provision of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam which provides an appeal against the impugned order, Ann. P-8, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel that by ignoring the provision of the statutory appeal how this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained for quashment of the impugned order, on which instead to argue further the counsel seeks permission to wi...
Ku. Ambika Vishwakarma Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
WP No.224 of 2012. 14.12.2012. Shri S.K.Patel for the petitioner. Shri M.K.Verma for the respondent No.1. Shri Ashok Pandey for respondent No.2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondent No.3. Shri Jaideep Singh prays 3 weeks' time to file reply. In the interest of justice, by way of last opportunity, prayer is allowed. I.A.No.14389/12 for grant of interim relief : Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 20.11.2012, though the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination,but, not the date of examination is changed and it is rescheduled from 27.12.2012, so the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the examination. On raising such contention, Shri Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in continuation to the order dt.20.11.2012, the petitioner herein would be permitted to appear in the examination rescheduled from 27.12.2012 for 3rd semester. In view of the stand of respondent No.1, no further order is required on I.A.No.14389/2012. The order dt...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »