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.
The Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistics Corporation Vs. Abhishek ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Managing Director, MP Warehousing & Logistics Corporation versus Abhishek Agro Parks and others 05.12.2012. Shri P.N.Dubey for the applicants. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari for non-applicant Nos.1 to 3. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for non- applicant Nos.4 to 7. This application has been filed for clarification of an order passed by this Court on 13.2.2012, in Writ Petition No.10312/2008. Office has raised an objection that a review application should have been filed, as such this application is not maintainable. As only clarification of certain directions issued is sought for, the office objection is over-ruled. Non-applicant No.1 is owner of Godown and Collector, Sehore passed an order by which Godown of non-applicant No.1 was taken on requisition under the MP Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948).Non-applicant No.1 challenged the requisition by filing a writ petition, W.P.No.10312/2008, and it was their case before this Court that as...
Subhash Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Subhash Chouhan versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.20164/2012 05/12/2012 Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Petitioner is an Inspector in the Co-operative Department and has been transferred vide order dated 19.11.2012. The material available on record indicates that the Model Code of Conduct in connection with the election of Co-operative Societies of the State of M.P.and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti come into force. When the said conduct come into force, prima-facie, the transfer of the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order dated 19.11.2012 transferring the petitioner is directed to be stayed and the petitioner permitted to work at the present place of posting in Khandwa till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Rakesh Gwalvanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
1 Writ Petition No.17819/2012 05.12.2012 Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with A/D within a period of one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within four weeks. Shri R.D.Jain, Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4. Let a copy of memo of petition along with annexures be supplied to learned Advocate General. Learned Advocate General seeks time to file reply to the petition. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to serve respondents no.5 to 25 by way of hum- dust notice. Prayer is allowed. Office is directed to supply copy of notices to the petitioner for service upon respondents no.5 to 25, on payment of required fees. If the petitioner serves respondents no.5 to 25 and files affidavit of service along with acknowledgement in the office to that effect, let the case be listed...
Smt. Premvati Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20411/2012 (Smt. Premvati Saket versus State of Mp and otheRs.05.12.2012 Heard Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Puneet Shroti, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi whereby the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bamuri, Janpand Panchayat Sihawal District Sidhi has been removed from the said post under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the impugned order is revisable, however, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition on account of the fact that the revisional authority is not available and the application filed by the petitioner before the Collector himself seeking stay of the operation till filing of the appeal/revision was decide...
Pushpa Bai Nagpure Vs. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Pushpa Bai Nagpure versus MP Professional Examination Board 05.12.2012. Shri Mohammed Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a candidate, who had appeared in the Examination conducted by the respondent Board for empanelment of candidates, for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. According to the petitioner, her date of birth is 12.6.1986, according to the documents issued by the Board of Secondary Education, MP, Bhopal i.e the High School Certificate Examination Annexure P/4 and various other documents. It is the case of the petitioner that inadvertently while filling up the Application Form online, for appearing in the Eligibility Test, 2011, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 6.12.1986 instead of 12.6.1986. When the petitioner received the admit card and the result of the examination Annexures P/2 and P/3, she found the mistake committed and, therefore, represented to the Board for co...
Nanku Singh Utiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Nanku Singh Utiya versus State & ORS.W.P.No.5273/2012 05/12/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned P.L.for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4. Challenging the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by Respondent No.4 terminating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 16.11.1995, he joined on the post on 19.11.1995 and, thereafter, he was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary and since then he is working as a Panchayat Secretary. When all of a sudden, his appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary is terminated mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to carry out his duty as a Panchayat Secretary in attending a meeting held and as working of the Panchayat is being adversely effected, his services have been terminated. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons given for terminating the services...
Deval Singh @ Devrak Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Deval singh versus state W.P.No.20309/2012 5.12.2012: Shri Arun K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner qualified in the test which was held for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner holds D.Ed Degree and therefore, he is entitled to 20 marks under the rules namely Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. However, the petitioner is not awarded 20 marks. It is further submitted the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority with regard to his grievance and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner....
Dinesh Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Dinesh Prasad Mishra versus State of MP and others 05.12.2012. Shri C.P.Sharma for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a daily wage employee in PWD prior to 31.12.1988. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of an order passed on 9.11.2004, in W.P.No.11666/2004, and the subsequent orders passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the circular issued therein, claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of re...
Awdhesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Shri S.D. Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
CONC NO.1969/2011 05-12-2012. Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rohni Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. On 10-05-2011, W.P.No.7971/2011(S) was disposed of without notice to the respondents and the respondents were directed to settle the claim of the applicant with regard to medical reimbursement. While disposing of the writ petition this court did not enter into the merit of the case and the only direction issued was to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. not from the reply filed by the respondents , it is seen that they have considered and rejected the claim of the applicant on various grounds as are indicated in Annexures R-1 and R-2. The grievance of the petitioner is that consideration has not been made properly, the circulars have been incorrectly given effect to and the rejection is not correct. As the claim on merit was not adjudicated and the matter was left to the departmental authorities to consider a...
Rocky Chouksey Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.19850/2012 5.12.2012: Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Office has raised a objection indicating that this writ petition is not maintainable. A perusal of the record indicates that petitioner is challenging recruitment to the services of the Union of India for a Group B post in the Central Government Civil employment. The matter pertains to employment in the Central Government under the Union of India and jurisdiction to deal with recruitment matters pertains to Union of India vests exclusively with Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court has no jurisdiction to look into the matter. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available of approaching Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »