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.
Atmaram Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Home and Affairs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
M.C.C.No.927/2012 07.12.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.19266/11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel appearing for the petitioner was busy in another court he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.19266/11 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number subject to payment of P.F.within seven days for issuance of notice to the respondents informing them about the restoration of the writ petition, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of ...
Mudrika Prasad Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Writ Petition No.11923 o07. 12/2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Record perused. This petition is for a direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father employed as Dresser in the State of Madhya Pradesh, who died on 30- 04-1999. The claim of the petitioner as apparent from the communication dated 01-06-2007 was rejected on the ground that brother of the petitioner since was already in Govt. Service an appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted as per clause 3.2 of the Policy in vogue dated 08-10- 2002. The clause stipulates : vuq dEik fu;q fDr ds la c a / k es a 'kklu Onkjk fuEufyf[kr vfrfjDr 'krs Z fu/kkZ fjr dh tkrh gS a :- (A)fnot x r 'kkldh; ls o d ds ifjokj ls rkRi;Z gS ].mldh /keZ i Ruh].iq = ,oa vfookfgr iq =h rFkk og fookfgr iq =h ftlds ifr dk ns g ka r gks pq dk gks vFkok tks rykd'kq nk gks A fnot x r 'kkldh; ls o d ds nRrd iq = / iq =h dks vuq dEik fu;q fDr...
Smt.Jamuna Bai Vs. Shri Gulshan Bamra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Smt. Jamuna Bai versus Gulshan BaMr.Con.C.No.1950/2012 07/12/2012 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Keeping in view the fact that the review petition in question is pending before Respondent/ the Collector of District Jabalpur, for the present without initiating action for contempt, respondent herein, the Collector Jabalpur is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which this Court may consider initiating action for contempt against the respondent. Accordingly, for the present, without initiating any action for contempt, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ram Niranjan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.19754/2012 07.12.2012 Shri Prem Das Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction for payment of his monetary claims which were said to be due with effect from 1996. This Court passed the order in W.P.No.17036/2003 on 7.1.2004 directing that the sum which would be payable to the petitioner be paid to him and all the arrears after refixation of salary be paid to him with interest @ 9% per annum. The order passed by this Court was very clear. The interest was awarded from the date of order and not from the date the amount became due to the petitioner. It appears that such an amount was not paid to the petitioner in appropriate manner and, therefore, some representations were made. However, lastly a representation is made by the petitioner making claim of various amounts which according to...
Harish Kori Vs. Raju K.Rajvardhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL 2343 2006 Before Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari Decided on 7 December, 2012 (Jabalpur) HARISH KORI Appellant Vs. RAJ.K. RAJVARDHAN & ors. Respondents Uttam Maheshwari, for the appellant. None for the respondents No.1 & 4. Ajay Mishra, for the respondent No.2. Dinesh Koushal, for the respondent No.3. ORDER J.K. M AHESHWARI , J.- This order shall govern the disposal of MA No.2343/06 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement and also M.A No.2534/06 filed by the a Central Govt. through Commandant MRC, Sagar assailing the award of compensation. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 29.3.06 passed by the Ist AMACT, Sagar in Case No.32/04, aforesaid both the appeals have been preferred.2. The facts in brief are that on 29.10.03 at about 7 AM, the injured was going to distribute the newspaper on the bicycle but near the Rest house No.2 Cant Sagar, the bus of MRC School bearing not CPV-0544 driven rashly and negligently by the driver came from behind and dashed the bicycle thereb...
Satish Datt Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 W.P.No.13556/2012 7.12.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner is working as Ayurved Medical Officer and is posted in Katni. By the impugned action and orders petitioner is transferred from Katni to District Seoni and therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer. In place of the petitioner respondent No.4 Dr. Bhartesh Jain has been posted and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court and challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on three grounds. They are : (i) it is a case of frequent transfer; (ii) the transfer is only for granting advantage and benefit to respondent No.4 and (iii) on the grounds of ailment of petitioner and medical grounds he prays for interference into the matter. It is argued by Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order Annexure P/1 da...
Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.19681/2012 7.12.2012: Shri Meghnath Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Department. On the ground that while undertaking census duty petitioner has committed certain irregularity, petitioner has been suspended vide Annexure P/ 1 on 26.2.2011 and thereafter a charge sheet is also issued to the petitioner as is evident from Annexure P/2 dated 31.3.2011, grievance of the petitioner is that suspension and issuance of charge sheet is illegal, it is said that the allegation about violation of provisions of Census is not correct. Petitioner is not responsible for the irregularity and pointing out that suspension is not called for interference into the matter is sought for. Further contention of the petitioner is that even though petitioner was suspended more tha1. 2 yeaRs.till date the subsistence allowance has not been paid for the last 7 months and his re...
Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20440/12 (Smt. Kamla Bai .versus State of MP & otheRs.07-12-2012 Shri C.L.Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State/respondent. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that that her name has not been included in the voter list as a result of which she has been deprived of contesting the Mandi election. It is pointed out by the learned Dy A.G.appearing for the State/respondents that the elections have already been notified on 19-11-2012 and, therefore, no cause for interference in the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision rendered in W.P.No.5371/2012, decided on 9-4-2012 wherein it has been held that the High Court should not interfere in an election process which has already been initiated, under Article, 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of ...
Smt.Archana Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
1 Writ Petition No.11777/2009 07.12.2012 Shri N.K.Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by district Project Coordinator, District Education Center, Rewa, by which the decision to close down the Education Guarantee Schools situate at village Sarratola Sounari, Janpad Panchayat Tyonthar, District Rewa, has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid school was set up initially under the non-formal education programme and after commencement of the education guarantee scheme, the schools are being run under the education guarantee scheme. It is further submitted that the decision to close down the schools has been taken under the political influence. It is also contended that if the school is closed down, the studies of t...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Writ Petition No.2214/2005 7.12.2012 Pursuant to our order dated 31.8.2012 compliance report has been filed by the State Government wherein steps taken for further removal of unauthorized religious structures have been narrated. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Deputy Advocate General, has, however, stated that a consolidated list of unauthorized religious structures which are to be removed shall be filed on the next date. He is permitted to do so. He has also assured that four religious structures, which have been re- constructed after demolition, shall also be demolished at the earliest. As regards demolition of Durga Temple, situated at Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, he submits that it could not be done due to temporary injunction granted by the civil court vide order dated 22.11.2012 in a civil suit filed by one Rampal Singh. But the learned Deputy Advocate General informed us that effective steps are being taken to oppose the application for temporary injunction before the civil court on...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »