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.
Kalpana Vs. the Sub Divisional Officer Prescribed Authority Election
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
W.P.No.16611/2012 (Kalpana versus SDO, Majhgawan &ors.) 11.12.2012 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Okhade, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Election Tribunal/Sub-Divisional Officer, Majhgawan, District Satna in case No.3C 144/EP/09-10, whereby the petitioner's election as Panch of ward No.5 of Gram Panchayat Amriti, Block Majhgawan, District Satna has been set aside. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6376/2010(s).setting aside the previous order passed by the authority dated 30.03.2010, ordering recount and the proceedings dated 27.04.2010 of recount of votes and directing the election Tribunal to frame issues, record evidence and hear the parties and thereafter pass suitable ordeRs.the election...
S.R.Shyag Vs. M.K. Rai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
1 Conc. No.609/2011 11.12.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. From the fact that have come on record, it is seen that action for complying with the directions issued by this Court on 2.2.2011 in W.P.No.1780/2011 (s) has been kept in abeyance as Writ Appeal No.722/2010 was pending. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and in the order passed vide Annexure R/1 on 4.5.2011 it is indicated that as the said writ appeal is pending, the matter shall be decided after the writ appeal is finally disposed of. not from the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.9.2012 in W.A.No.722/2010 it transpires that matter has been decided and writ appeal disposed of in accordance to the directions issued therein. As the writ appeal is not disposed of on 18.9.2012 respondents should take action for considering the claim of petitioners in accordance to directions issued by this Court on 2.2.2011 in W...
Dhruv Prasad Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
Dhruv Prasad Lodhi versus State of MP and others 11.12.2012. Shri P.K.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava for respondents 4 and 5. Shri Chandrapal Singh for respondent No.6. Challenging the order-dated 18.4.2011 Annexure P/1 passed by the Collector, District Panna in the matter of appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Kariya, Tehsil Pawai, District Panna, this writ petition has been filed. On the basis of the notification issued both petitioner and respondent No.6 submitted their candidature for appointment to the post in question. Based on the merit of respondent No.6 as he had obtained 87.33% marks in the qualifying examination as compared to 86.22% marks obtained by the petitioner, respondent No.6 was appointed. Petitioner challenged this appointment before the Collector and the Collector having rejected the same, petitioner is before this Court. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviti...
Prahlad Singh Vs. Chhindwara Seoni Khegtriya GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
W.P.No.3339/2006 (Prahland Singh and others versus Chhindwara- Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another) 11.12.2012 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Som Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri S.P.Rai, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. Though notices were issued to the respondents and the counsel for the respondent/Bank has entered appearance, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Seoni and the Branch Manager, Chhindwara- Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank, respondent No.1 to examine the complaint of the petitioners regarding non- disbursement of the insurance amount and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent/Bank has no objection to the said prayer. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a detailed represen...
Narendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
W.P.No.20399/2012 (N.S.Rajput versus State of MP and otheRs.11.12.2012 Heard Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to arrest the respondents No.6 and 7 and to file a Challan against them before the competent court after completing investigation in crime No.240/12 registered at Police Station, Hindoriya, District Damoh under sections 307, 341, 34 of the IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents/police authorities are not taking any action against the respondents No.6 and 7 by arresting them inspite of registering a case against them relating to non-bailable offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that F.I.R.was registered in the month of August, but till date challan has not been filed by the police before the competent court, therefore the police authorities be direct...
Satya Narayan Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.A.No.1177/2012 Satya Narayan Pandey State of M.P.& others 10.12.2012 Shri Dileep Pandey, Counsel for appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No.3. The order passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.14402/2012(s) dated 5.9.2012 is under challenge in this appeal. Aforesaid order reads thus:- It is contended that t he petitioner is working on the post of Planning Officer sanctioned in the office of District Education Officer, Rewa vide order dated 02/06/2007. The petitioner is continuously holding the said post yet by some action, the respondents have started drawing the salary of the petitioner against the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. Objecting to this, the petitioner has made a representation before the respondent No.2 but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, he has come before this Court. If the petitioner is posted by the order of competent authority i.e.the State Government on the post of Planning Of...
Ravinder Singh Chhabra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Ravinder Singh Chhabra versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.10.12.2012. Shri Vivek Rusia for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Rajendra Patel for respondent No.3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming compassionate appointment. Claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order-dated 13.3.2012 only on the ground that after a period of seven years compassionate appointment cannot be granted. However, policy of the State Government in the matter of granting compassionate appointment has been changed on 13.1.2011 and the rider of limitation of seven years fixed has been done away with. In view of the above, petitioners case is required to be reconsidered in accordance to this policy dated 13.1.2011. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order-dated 13.3.2012 Annexure P/7 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policy and circular dated 13.1.2011 an...
Ajay Kumar Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Ajay Kumar Lodhi versus State of MP and others 10.12.2012. Shri Sushil Mishra for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State 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/-...
Shishu Pal Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20294/2012 (S.P.Singh Rajput versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Heard Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.10.2012 by which the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's application for stay of the order removing him from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Singhpur District Damoh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the authority deserves to be set aside as no reasons while rejecting the stay application have been assigned. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the matter was taken up by the appellate authority as the petitioner insisted for hearing on the application for stay without record and the authority perusing the impugned order has recored a prima facie opinion. In the circumstances,I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It however, goes without saying that the p...
Ramakant Janghela Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20389 10. 12-2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice to the respondents, on both counts, on payment of process fee within seven days failing with the petition shall strand dismissed without further reference to the Court. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the petitioner Ramakant Janghela shall be released on bail, in connection with Criminal Appeal No.09/2011, decided by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge Mandla on 20-11-2012 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for one year alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla subject to the fact that he deposits the entire fine amount. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »