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 Lakhan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :2836. of 1998 Ram Lakhan Singh - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.B.Vishwakarma, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey and Shri B.P.Pandey, Panel LawyeRs.for the State/respondents 1 to 5. Shri Shreyas Pandit, counsel for respondent No.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 06/12/2012 Challenging the order-dated 3.6.1998 Annexure P/6, passed by the Minister of the Department concerned, interfering with the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, in the matter of terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, this writ petition has been filed. 2- On the basis of certain resolution said to have been passed by Gram Sabha of the Gram Panchaya...
The Chairman D.N. JaIn Boarding House Society Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
R.P.No.841/2012 06.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Udyan Tiwari, and Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Prabhat Asati and Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. This review application has been filed for recalling of the order dated 4.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.3667/2005. In fact, the writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein for the following relief :- The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to issue the order dated 16.3.2005 and quash the said order and also direct the respondents to pay sufficient amount of Rs.5000/- every month till the final decision in the S.L.P.before the Apex Court filed by the State Government. On service of the notice of the writ petition, the review petitioners herein, the respondents No.2 and 3 in writ petition have filed their return and have categorical...
Jitu Prasad Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.6440/2011 Jitu Prasad Vs Industrial Development Bank and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the Petitioner . Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents. ORDER (6.12.2012) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22.2.2011, said to be issued by the respondents, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect. It is alleged that the petitioner took part in selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager (Executive- Grade-A) and on selection an offer of appointment was issued to him. The petitioner reported on duty on 1.12.2010. The relevant documents were produced by him. However, after scrutiny of his documents, it was observed by the Bank that the petitioner belongs to Roniyar. (Baniya) caste from the State of Jharkhand. Finding that the said caste was not ap...
Laxman Prasad Patel Vs. Anirudh Mukharjee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
CONC. NO.36/10 06-12-2012. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. This application has been filed inter alia contending that an award passed in the Lok Adalat of the High Court has not been complied with. If the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat has not been complied with, the applicant should seek execution of the award or file writ petition for the same. On the ground that the award passed in the Lok Adalat is not implemented, contempt action cannot be initiated. Accordingly, granting liberty to the applicant to take recouRs.to the remedy available under law, in case he has any grievance still subsisting, this application stands disposed of. In view of the above, respondent are discharged from the proceedings and the application stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE...
Hargyan Singh [R.A.E.O.] Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Hargyan Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 05.12.2012. Smt. M.P.S.Chuckal for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and has been posted in Development Block Barasia, District Bhopal. By the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from Barasia to District Vidisha. It is stated that petitioner has not been relieved till date. It is pointed out by Smt. Chuckal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is disabled to an extent of more than 74% and in support thereof she has produced the disability certificate Annexure P/2, issued by the District Medical Board, Bhopal, which shows that the petitioner is more than 74% disabled and, therefore, placing reliance on the policy which grants certain benefit to persons with disability of more than 40%, petitioner has submitted a representation and has sought for cancellation of the order of transfe...
Ramnugrah Sharma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.4020/2003 05.12.2012 Shri Pramod K. Pandey, lerned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. This writ petition has been filed seeking correction in the date of birth of the petitioner, on the ground that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was not mentioned in the service record and only on the basis of erroneous date of birth of the petitioner, he was sought to be retired with effect from 30.6.2003 by order dated 26.6.2003 Annx.P/4, therefore, such an order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.12.1945 as is indicated in the educational certificate which the petitioner has produced before the authorities, on the basis of which the note sheet was written and referred to the authorities for making correction in the date of birth of the petitioner. However, no orders have been passed on such a claim made by the petitioner. On the other hand, he was being retire...
Kishanchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20136/2012 (Kishan Chand & ors versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 05.12.2012 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by notice dated 16.11.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Nainpur to the petitioners under Section 248 of the M.P.L.R.C.as well as notice dated 15.06.2012 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Nainpur, District Mandla, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the alleged encroachment made by them on 22x1 sq. meter of government land. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land occupied by the petitioners were given to them in the year 1959 and since then the construction made thereon is standing. It is submitted that the petitioners have not made any further construction since 1959 not have they constructed a tin ...
Saonsar Vipalan Avam Prakirya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sansar Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20145/2012 (Saonsar Vipalan Avam Prakirya Sahkari Samiti versus State of MP and otheRs.05.12.2012 Heard Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition against a show cause notice dated 03.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.4 General Manager, District Trade and Industry Centre to the petitioner directing him to deposit the lease rent commence work in the industry and take steps enumerated therein failing which the lease allotted to the petitioner would be cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had filed a proposal before the Collector for rehabilitation of the petitioner society under which he has been permitted to undertake several activities on the land allotted to him but in view of the impugned notice the petitioner has been unable to do so. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the impugned...
Shakutala Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Shakutala Saket versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.20056/2012 05/12/2012 Shri Pawan Kumar Singh Senger, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the appointment of Respondent No.5 on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, petitioner has directly filed this writ petition without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available before the Collector and second appeal before the Commissioner. The appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta is undertaken in accordance with the scheme of the State Government and in the scheme itself, remedy of appeal before the Collector and the second appeal before the Commissioner is available. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Sanjay Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Sanjay Kumar Patel versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19657/2012 05/12/2012 Shri Shreyas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition pertains to appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. Even though, various grounds are raised assailing the selection made, this Court has consistently held that appointments of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to statutory rules framed under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995. and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal and revision available is not maintainable. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that in case, the petitioner prefers an appropriate appeal before the competent authority within a period of 15 days' from today, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a period of two months' thereof. With ...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »