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.
Ajay Kumar Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 Writ Petition No.20755/2012 07.12.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.On payment of process fee by registered post with A/D within a week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Shri Ganguly submitted that the B.B.A.FiRs.Semester examination is to commence from tomorrow and, therefore, it would not be possible to make arrangements for appearance of the petitioners in the aforesaid examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to forego the fiRs.paper to be held tomorrow, i.e.on 8.12.2012, and are willing to appear in the remaining papers from 12.12.2012. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioners is accepted. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners be permitted to appear in the examination of B.B.A.FiRs.Semester from the second paper to be held from 12.12.2012, for the academic year 2012-13. It is made clear that the appearance of t...
Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Mydt. Betul, M.P. Vs. Arvind Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.14833/2011) Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. Arvind Yadav (Writ Petition No.18758/2011) Arvind Yadav Vs. Betul Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri Anil Lala, Advocate in W.P. No. 14833/2011 and Shri Bhawan Singh, Advocate in W.P. No. 18758/201 Counsel for respondent Shri Bhagwan Singh, Advocate in W.P. No. 14833/2011 and Shri Anil Lala, Advocate in W.P. No. 18758/2011 O R D E R (07/12/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Order dated 12.8.2011 passed by M.P. Co operative Tribunal is being assailed vide these two writ petitions. By this order the Tribunal affirms the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshangabad; whereby, the order dated 30.5.2008, terminating the services of respondent (in W.P. No. 148...
Sujeet Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 W.P.No.10798/2012 Sujeet Ratore versus State of M.P.& ORS.07.12.2012 Heard Shri K.K.Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the false caste certificate given to Darshan Singh Luniya, Sarad Singh Luniya, Nishant Singh Luniya, Kundan Singh and Ranjeet Singh who have been sought to be impleaded as respondent no.16 to 20 in the petition by I.A No.15376/2012 filed by the petitioner for amendment of the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said application it transpires that the petitioner has to approach the State Level High Power Committee for getting the caste certificates of the aforesaid persons cancelled as it is the aforesaid committee which is empowered to do so in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and OtheRs.AIR 199.SC 94. In the circumstances, as the...
Haji Rasool Khan Sherani Vs. M.P.State Wakf Board, Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.7563 / 2009 (Haji Rasool Khan Sherani ..versus MP State Wakf Board, Bhopal & ors.) 07-12-2012 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Saleem Rehman, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Faiyaz Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the intervener. The learned counsel for the respondent/Wakf Board submits that the petitioner in the present petition had assailed the order dated 22-5-2009 by which a committee had been appointed to manage the Anjuman Islahul Muslemeen Gandhi Memorial School, Ratlam for a period of three yeaRs.It is further submitted that the period of three years is over and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner has been rendered infructuous as the impugned order dated 22-5-2009 has outlived its life. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the respond...
Mahesh Singh Chouhan Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 W.P.No.16955/2011 Mahesh Singh Chouhan versus General Manager & ORS.07.12.2012 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S.Ruprah learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 13.9.2011 passed by respondent no.4 wherein the authority concerned has allowed the prayer of the petitioner to shift the place of the cycle stand, contract for which was awarded to him by the respondents for establishing a cycle stand at Bina Railway Station District Sagar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract for running the cycle stand was awarded to the petitioner subject to being provided a fenced space by the respondents which has not been done by them and, therefore, the petitioner has been unable to run the stand and has also requested the authority concerned to revoke his contract but they have not done so. It is submitted that on the cont...
Fazal Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Writ Petition No.5869 o07. 12/2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. The petitioner by this petition seeks direction to the respondents to pay incentive of Rs.10,000/- for three yeaRs.The relief has been sought on the basis of the scheme which has been introduced b y the State Government pertaining to artificial insemination in rural areas. Responding to the claim put forth by the petitioner, the respondents/State and its functionaries have filed the return wherein it is stated that as per the policy (NPCCB Programme) and implementation of the programme, the petitioner who deposited 20% amount (Rs.39375/- ) and artificial insemination kit amounting to Rs.39375/- has been made available for better facilitation of artificial insemination. It is contended that since the amount of Rs.39375/- has already been availed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for the amount of Rs.10,000/- per year for a period of three yeaRs.It is furt...
M/S. Saligram and Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.5806 / 2009 (M/S.Saligram & Company, Jabalpur .versus Union of India & three ors.) 07-12-2012 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/Cantonment Board. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/authorities, after having taken over possession of the ice factory situated at Survey No.143/535, 143/822 and 168, total area of 9113 sq. ft., which was initially leased out to one K.A.Israni and then sold to the petitioner in 1945, have not decided the issue regarding amount of compensation which is to be paid to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent/Cantonment Board has informed the petitioner vide communication dated 26-9-2006 that the Board has resolved to decide the issue of compensation, no decision has been communicated to the petitioner till date not has the petitioner been given any opportunity to part...
Purshottam Uike Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Purshottam Uike versus Stae & ORS.W.P.No.20498/2012 07/12/2012 Shri Gajendra Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Manual Assistant Officer in the Weight and Measurement Department. Vide order Annexure-P1 dated 12.7.2012, petitioner was transferred from Chhindwara to Alirajpur. Inter-alia contending that the petitioner is a Class-IV Employee and he has been transferred to far a place, which is not tenable, initially petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11543/2012(s) and on 8.8.2012 vide order Annexure-P3, this Court came to the conclusion that on the grounds canvassed with regard to transfer of the petitioner before completing the normal tenure, judicial review is not permissible and further holding that the impugned is not in violation to the statutory provisions, not does it suffers from the vices of malafides, this Court refused to interfere into the matter, instead, directed the competent authority to decide the representation of ...
Amrita Lal Napit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 Writ Petition No.20754/2012 07.12.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.On payment of process fee by registered post with A/D, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Having regard to the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.20277/2012, we direct that the petitioners be permitted to appear in the examination of B.C.A.FiRs.Semester for the academic year 2012-13 which shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition. It is further directed that the result of the examination shall not be declared without the leave of this Court. A typed copy of this order by supplied to Shri Ganguly, Panel Lawyer, for necessary action. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Sharad SaraThe Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20454/2012 (Sharad Sarathe versus M.P.State Information Commission and otheRs.07.12.2012 Heard Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the second appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the State Information Commission vide Annexure P/6 has not been decided inspite of the fact that it was received by the second appellate authority on 14.05.2012 and in such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate ordeRs.It is however, observed that after 14.05.2012 the petitioner has not filed any application for urgent hearing or otherwise before the second appellate authority and has directly rushed to this court by filing the the present petition. In the circumstances, I find no reason to issue any direction to the authority before whom the second appeal is pending. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »