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.
Rampyare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.P.No.20318/2012 10.12.2012. MRS.June Choudhary, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ratnesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 17.10.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by the S.D.O. Bahoriband District Katni in revenue case No.28/A-56/2011-12 whereby allowing the appeal of the respondent No.8 and setting aside the order of Tahsildar at the place of the petitioner the respondent No.8 has been directed to be appointed as Kotwar and pursuant to it earlier direction to reinstate the petitioner has been quashed. Initially after taking me through the papers placed on record by referring the provision of Section 258 of MPLRC the petitioner's counsel argued the case at length for admission and allowing this petition but in response of some query of the Court based on the provision of Section 44 (2) of MPLRC, in which the impugned order is made ...
Nand Lal Rai Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.8420/2012 10/12/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned P.L.for Respondent No.1 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Petitioner is working as a Tractor Driver in M.P.Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam and has been transferred from Kundeshwar District- Tikamgarh to Damoh and challenging the aforesaid transfer order, this writ petition has been filed. Even though, various grounds are raised assailing the order of transfer and Shri Dharmendra Soni, representing the Employer has tried to justify the action taken, records indicate that in pursuance to the order of transfer, petitioner has not joined on the amended transfer place i.e.Balgarh District-Dewas after the order passed vide Annexure-P3 and, therefore, Shri V.K.Shukla submits that not the only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to payment of salary. Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been relieved and has not...
Bhaduram Malvi Vs. Western Coalfields Limited Coal Estate Civil Lines ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20179/2012 (Bhaduram Malvi versus W.C.L.& ors.) 10.12.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Rao, learned Sr.counsel with Shri S. Pandey for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are not taking any steps on the application filed by the petitioner for re-examining him by the appellate medical board for the purpose of determining as to whether he is fit for performing the duties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from Hemiplegia, in spite of which he has been declared fit by the medical board only to avoid implementation of clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is observed that the petitioner's application was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer, Barkuhi Hospital on 23.03.2012 to the Manager, Vishnupuri Mines for examining his case for forwarding the same to t...
Jumman Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Jumman Khan versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 10.12.2012. Shri Amit Chaturvedi for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order cancelling the transfer in question and the impugned action, representation filed by the petitioner is still pending. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 The District Education Officer, Panna is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo in the matter of working of the petitioner shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti Jagat Sagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20693 / 2012 (Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti, Chhatarpur..Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 10-12-2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 21-11-2012 passed by the respondent No.2 in Case not F-5/129/22/Panchayat-2/12-Revision whereby the application for stay filed by the respondent No.5 has been allowed and operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar dated 23-10-2012 has been stayed and the matter has been listed for further hearing on 5-2-2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order of stay has been passed ex parte without hearing the petitioner and without considering the documents on record which clearly indicates that the petitioner had been granted lease of Jagat Sagar Lake, District Chhatarpur after following the procedure prescribed by law. It is furt...
Pancham Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20512/2012 (Pancham Singh versus State of M.P.& ors.) 10.12.2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the prescribed authority, Dindori is not completing the proceedings initiated under Section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mohatara, Janpad Panchyat, Karanjiya, District Dindori on the complaint filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the notices to the concerned Sarpanch was issued by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.10.2011, but thereafter no steps have been taken by the authority in spite of repeated requests of the petitioner, therefore the said authority be directed to decide the proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. The learned Govt. Advocate appe...
Vikas Shivhare @ Vikkie Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20500/2012 (Vikash Shivkahre versus State of M.P.& ors.) 10.12.2012 Heard Shri Rajeev Barkur, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the compliant filed by the petitioner against certain police officeRs.In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Katni to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With th...
Nav Yuvak Machhuva Swa Sahayta Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.5579/2012 (Nav Yuvak Machhuva Swa-Sahayata Samooh versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Smt. June Choudhary senior advocate with Shri Ratnesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. It is fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the term of the fishing contract granted to the petitioner was up to June, 2012 which has expired rendering the present petition infructuous. It is however, submitted that the petitioner be permitted to undertake the fishing activity in the Tank till March, 2013 as the petitioner has invested in putting fish seeds in the Tank. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that the present petition has been rendered infructuous, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as such with a direction that the petitioner may approach the competent authority for interim possession and man...
Narayan Nishad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.18261/2012 (Narayan Nishad versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/police authorities to conduct free and fair investigation in F.I.R dated 20.09.2012 registered as Crime No.675/12 at Police Station, Katni. From a perusal of the petition it transpires that the police has already registered an F.I.R.and there is nothing on record to substantiate that the police is not conducting free and fair investigation and it goes without saying that the police would do so and proceed in the matter in accordance with law to ensure that it reaches a logical conclusion and that the faith of the public is strengthened in the police administration. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to issue any direction as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Th...
Jop Power Infra Engg.Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorva Khetra Vidyut Vitr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
JOP Power Infra Engg. Ltd versus MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Jabalpur. 10.12.2012. Shri Shravan Rao for the applicant. Shri Sankalp Kochar for the non-applicant. On 2.3.2012, Arbitration Case No.42/2011 was disposed of taking note of a statement made by learned counsel for the non-applicant that all the dues have been settled and, therefore, no dispute exists for being adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Now, on the basis of the material available on record, it seems that certain dues are still outstanding and, therefore, the order was passed on wrong assumption. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this application is allowed. Order-dated 2.3.2012, passed in Arbitration Case No.42/2011 is recalled. List the said case for hearing before the Appropriate Bench in the second week of January, 2012. Accordingly, the review application stands allowed and disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »