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.
Ram Sajiwan Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20474/2012 7.12.2012: Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Assistant Grade III in District Hospital, Satna. Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 passed by the Director, Health Services, petitioner has been transferred from Satna to Singrauli. Even though transfer order is passed on 13.7.2012, it is stated that petitioner has not been relieved. Petitioner points out that in the same order two more persons namely Shri Nandlal Pandey and Shri S.N.Rathore were also transferred but in the case of these two persons on representation being submitted their transfer had been cancelled. That apart, in the case of petitioner also respondent No.3 has recommended for canceling the transfer of the petitioner vide communication Annexure P/6 dated 24.7.2012 and as the same is not considered petitioner is before this Court. It is contended by the petitioner that transfer is contrary to clause ...
Pratipal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20449/2012 (Pratipal Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.07.12.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that though the petitioner has been elected as the President of the Water Shed Committee, Sorkhi Tahsil Ghuvara District Chhatarpur by majority of 12 out of 14 votes, the authorities concerned i.e the respondents No.2 and 3 are not issuing the appropriate orders declaring him elected not are they giving him the charge and on the contrary, they have requested the authority to conduct fresh election on 07.12.2012 and the matter has been referred to the Collector, Chhatarpur. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the matter requires to be adjudicated by the competent authority on the basis of several disputed questions of fact which can not be gone into by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition filed by the ...
Parshuram Singh Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20443/2012 (Parashram Lodhi versus State of M.P.& ors.) 07.12.2012 Heard Shri Ashish Kurmi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the the respondent No.3, Collector, Sagar is not taking any action on the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.5, Secretary of Gram Panchayat Shahpur, Tahsil and District Sagar alleging that criminal cases have been registered against him and therefore, action be taken against him in accordance with law. Apparently the petitioner has not filed any document to indicate or establish that any competent court has taken cognizance of a punishable criminal offence against the respondent No.5, though an FIR has been filed against respondent No.5 by one Khilan Singh and a complaint case has also been filed by him before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sagar. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is d...
Bhavna Agrawal Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.20335/2012 (Bhavna Agrawal & anr. versus Municipal Corporation) 07.12.2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Kapil Jain for the petitioner. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation on advance copy. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by notice/reminder issued to them on 24.11.2012 asking them to file documents and get the illegal construction made by them regularised. It is submitted by the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have not undertaken any illegal construction and therefore, the notice dated 24.11.2012 is misconceived. From a perusal of the impugned noticed/reminder dated 24.11.2012, it is clear that the authorities themselves have given 15 days time to submit all the documents for the purpose of further action. On being confronted with the same, the learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners submits that 15 days time as provided in the notice/reminder have lapsed, theref...
Ram Avatar Gupta Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Writ Petition No.2298 o07. 12/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. The petitioners herein call in question the correctness of Clause No.8 and 16 of the Excise Policy 2008-09 brought in existence vide notification dated 28-01- 2008. Admittedly, the said period has expired and with the efflux of time the issue is only of academic interest. In view whereof since no substantive writ can be issued, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition therefore is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this petition will not be a precedent for the Conditions No.8 and 16 which are being questioned vide this petition. In other words, the petitioners in case of revival of such conditions in subsequent policy in future would be at liberty to question the same. Certified copy as per rules. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE sc...
Smt.Saroj Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
W.P.No.13059/2012 (Smt. Saroj Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ors.) 07.12.2012 Shri R.P.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. It is stated by the respondents that the missing person Ku. Ruby has been traced out from Pune and is produced before this court. It is stated that she is minot and therefore is handed over to the custody of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, as the missing person has been recovered and being a minot is handed over to her parents, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition, which is accordingly disposed of by recording the aforesaid statement. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Amit Kumar Gadariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
R.P.No.776/2012 (Amit Kumar Gadariya versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 07.12.2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application praying for recalling the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P No.14681/2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to revaluate his answer sheets in subject of Science of the High School Examination 2012. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn on the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that by mistake in misinterpretation he has withdrawn the aforesaid petition and, therefore, the order passed by this Court be recalled. In view of the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, the review application, filed by the applicant, is accordingly allowed. The order disposing of W.P No.14681/2012 is recalled and is directed to be listed to its original number. This review pet...
Blooms Academy Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
M.C.C.No.1371/2012 (Blooms Academy versus Assistant provident Fund Commissioner) 07.12.2012 Heard Shri Uttam Meheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent on advance copy on the question of admission. The applicant submits that due to unforeseen circumstances, the applicant could not file the appeal within 30 days of the date of order passed by this court on 12.10.2012 in W.P.No.10770/08 but could do so only on 14.11.2012 i.e.three days after 30 days and in such circumstances, the counsel for the applicant prays for extending the period of 30 days by three days to enable the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits as an objection has been raised by the authority on accepting the appeal regarding delay. The learned counsel for the respondent entering appearance on advance copy on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the applicantion and stated that the reasons for seeking extension are not genuine. Having hear...
Smt. Rajkunwar Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
M.C.C.No.1319/2012 07.12.2012 Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.12660/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC for restoration of the writ petition dismissed in default. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the MCC is condoned. The MCC itself is heard on the question of admission. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that on certain occasions, the writ petition was listed before this Court, but on account of unavoidable reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear in the Court. For these reasons, the writ petition has been dismissed. It is contended that the claim of family pension was made by the petitioner and she being an aged lady, was not in a position to make arrangement for prosecution of her claim before this Court. Such statements are supported by an affidavit. Considering the aforesaid, the order dated 28.6.2011, passed in Writ Petition No...
Ramavtar Pateria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Ramavtar Pateria & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.20305/2012 07/12/2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Petitioners herein are working as a Precess Servers in the district of Chhatarpur. It is the case of the petitioners that in the district of Chhatarpur, in pursuance to certain orders passed by this Court, the Collector Chhatarpur has considered the cases of similarly situated employees for regularization and vide order Annexure-P6 dated 17.10.2007, more than 20 employees similarly situated were regularized, thereafter, again vide order Annexure-P7 dated 31.1.2008, again 12 candidates similarly situated were regularized. Grievance of the petitioners are that similar treatment is not granted to the petitioners and even though the representation in this regard is submitted, no action is taken. Considering the aforesaid grievance of the petitioneRs.the Collector Chhatarpur is directed to c...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »