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.
Mohan Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20265/2012 10.12.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition without challenging any specific order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the compensation employment and other benefits as per Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2002.2. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded. In the couRs.of arguments on perusing the petition alongwith Annexures, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition the representations of the petitioner Annexure P-7 and P-8 are still pending for adjudication before the authorities of the respondents. In such premises instead ...
Pushpraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Pushpraj Singh and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 10.12.2012. Shri Prabhakar Singh, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents, on advance notice. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition the petitioners who are employed as Section Writer have challenged the validity of the order dated 29.9.2012, passed by the Collector by which their claim for regularization has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Revenue Department, Government of M.P.has issued guidelines dated 23.7.2010 and 24.8.11 with regard to dealing with the claim of Section Writers for regularization. However, the impugned order has been passed without taking into account the criteria laid down by the aforesaid guidelines. Learned Counsel for the State was unable to point out that while passing the order dated 29.9.2012 the Collector has taken into account the guidelines dated 23.7.2010 and 24.8.1...
Shambhoo Dayal Tiwari Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.18287/2011 10.12.2012 Shri T. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents although represented through duly engaged counsel. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Shakuntala Bai, W/o Mana Prasad Dubey on whose behalf IA No.5128/12 has been filed to permit her to intervene in the matter. In view of listing the matter for admission and IA No.5128/12 and IA No.355/12, applications for early hearing do not require any further consideration, hence the same are disposed of. Petitioner's counsel seeks short adjournment to file the reply of aforesaid IA of the applicant. Let this matter be listed in the month of January 2013, meanwhile petitioner's counsel may file the reply of aforesaid IA as prayed. At the request of the applicant's counsel it is observed that no stay has been granted by this court against the Succession Proceeding which is pending in the Succession Court. C c per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Anil Kumar Pujari [Vajpayee] Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Anil Kumar Pujari (Vajpayee) versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.10.12.2012. Shri M.P.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Rajendra Patel for respondent No.4. 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/4 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 13.1.20...
Smt.Vinay Kumari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20601/2012 (Smt. Vinay Kumari versus State of MP and otheRs.10.12.2012 Heard Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the application filed by the petitioner seeking police protection on account of the fact that she has been threatened by her family members on having entered into marriage with one Deepak Kumar. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Seoni to look into the application 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. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
D.K.Upadhyay Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.P. No. 12308/2012 10.12.2012 Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sharad Punj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. Order dated 2.7.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 451/2012 as well as order passed in Review Application No. 8/2012 on 25.7.2012 are being assailed vide this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order dated 2.7.2012 petitioner's original application seeking direction for change of the inquiry officer in a departmental inquiry has been declined. A review sought of said order has also been dismissed. Petitioner, Senior Section Engineer (Electrical). West Central Railway, Itarsi has been subjected to disciplinary inquiry with the issuance of major penalty chargesheet (S...
Gyanendra Pratap Singh Vs. M.P.Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.16745/2012 10/12/2012 Shri D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging his retirement on the basis of scheme formulated for grant of Voluntary Retirement by the M.P.State Road Transport Corporation, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The question of granting benefit of the said retirement scheme and the action taken by M.P.State Road Transport Corporation under similar circumstances has been considered and decided by this Court in W.P.No.952/2006 (Mahendra Kumar Pandey versus General Manager, MPSRTC & Anr.) and various writ petitions have also been decided, wherein the claims of the employees are to be considered. In the case of the petitioner also, certain directions have already been issued by this Court in W.P.No.2658/2007(S).but till date benefit accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme submitted by him has not been granted. Keeping in view same, respondents are directed to take action in the case of the petitioner f...
Mahendra Singh @ Guddu @ Lakadsangda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20163/2012 10.12.2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 20.9.2012, (Ann. P-4) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewa under Section 3, r/w Section 5 of the M.P.Rajya Security Act 1990 whereby the petitioner has been directed to leave the boundaries of District Rewa alongwith the boundaries of surrounding districts. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel that how the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India could be entertained unless the remedy of statutory appeal provided under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act is exhausted by the petitioner, on which instead to argue further the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate appeal before the Commissioner, (Revenue) under Section 9 of t...
Smt. Rinki JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
1 W.P.No.15036/2012 10.12.2012. Shri M. Shafiqullah. , learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.s Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 30.7.2012 (Ann. P.3) passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Cr. Revision No.123/12 affirming the order dated 21.5.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by the respondent No.2 Collector in Case No.25-B/21/2011- 12 whereby the application of the petitioner filed for interim custody of the vehicle TATA 20 bearing registration not M.P.-19-GA-1210 was dismissed. It is noted that on 6.12.2011 as alleged some unaccountable Gas Cylinders were found in such vehicle when the same were being transported, on which a Crime No.464/11 was registered at P.S.Amarpatan against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. As per the case of the petitioner on fil...
Vikas Dubey Vs. General Manager West Central Railway
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
W.P.No.20231/2012 Vikas Dubey versus G.M.& anr. 10.12.2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, asking the petitioner to remove his liquor shop from KhaSr.No.160, shop No.605 on Jabalpur Katni road by 02.12.2012. From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents filed alongwith the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in respect of the action proposed to be taken by the respondent No.2, which was registered as C.S.No.53-A/11, but was dismissed in default, subsequent to which the petitioner had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., which is pending decision and in which notices have already been issued to the respondents. It is stated that the suit was fixed before the Civil Judge Clas...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »