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.
Smt. Savita Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20285/2012 (Smt. Savita Gautam & anr. versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 05.12.2012 Heard Shri M.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioners are required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigation of their grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dispose...
Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
shashi bhushan singh versus state W.P.No.20298/2012 5.12.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School Madhavgarh, District Satna. Vide Annexure P/1 dated 15.7.2012 petitioner was transferred to Government Excellence Higher Secondary School, Raigaon, District Satna. Even though the order was passed on 15.7.2012 it seems that the same was received in the School only on 16.8.2012 and the Principal of the School vide Annexure P/2 informed the office of respondent No.2 that in the School in question there is only one Teacher in the subject of Chemistry and if the petitioner is relieved, it would create serious problem in the school and therefore, seeking guidance, petitioner was not relieved. It seems that not petitioner is not being permitted to work and as proper relieving is not ordered, petitioner is before this Court. Keeping in view the a...
Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Regional Manager, Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava versus Regional Manager, Bank of India & Anr. 05.12.2012. Shri K.N.Pethia for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur on 8.11.2012, in a proceeding pending before him under the Industrial Dispute Act on a reference made, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working as a Messenger (Casual Labour) with the Bank of India. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the year 1990 and was working continuously. The Bank of India Employees Union has raised an industrial dispute on behalf of the casual employees like the petitioner, in the matter of regularization of their service and refusing to grant them benefit of permanent appointment. On the dispute raised by the Union, the appropriate Government vide Annexure P/3 has referred the reference for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur t...
The Managing Director M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Vs. M/S May Fair ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Managing Director, MP Warehousing & Logistics Corporation & Others versus M/s May Fair Warehousing and others 05.12.2012. Shri P.N.Dubey for the applicants. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for non-applicant No.1. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for non- applicants 2 and 3. Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate, appears for the Uco Bank, Piplani, Bhopal, as an Intervener. This application has been filed for clarification of an order passed by this Court on 13.2.2012, in Writ Petition No.8434/2010. Office has raised an objection that a review application should have been filed and 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...
Vinod Kumar Soni Vs. N.C.L., Nighai Project and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
1 W.P.No.4027/2003 Vinot Kumar Soni versus N.C.L & ORS.05.12.2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 2.5.2003 by which the respondent N.C.L has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to allot him shop no.23 in the Shopping Complex constructed by them in the N.C.L Project Nigahi. The case of the petitioner, in the present petition, is that the petitioner alongwith one Shiv Vachan Shah, who is a land oustee, applied for a shop which was required to be allotted to the land oustee by the respondents on preferential basis but the respondents have not done so contrary to their own policy and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be allotted shop no.23. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the respondents had acquired th...
ies School of Pharmacy Vs. All India Council for Technical Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.15320/2012(O) 05.12.2012 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for respondents. The petitioner sought following reliefs:- "(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent AICTE for issuing a formal order/communication relating to closure of their 60 seats of B. Pharmacy course, constituting the subject matter of present petition within a time bound period. (ii) Any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed with costs."The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has moved an application for closure of its Pharmacy College by filing an application to the respondents but the aforesaid application has not been decided till date by issuing the formal letter of closure, though on the website, the petitioner's institution has been shown as closed with zero intake. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to decide the app...
Suresh SaraThe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
suresh sarathe versus state W.P.No.20235/2012 5.12.2012: Shri P. Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Training Superintendent and has been transferred from Industrial Training Institute Gas, Bhopal to Industrial Training Institute, Sironj District Vidisha. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that it has been passed at the behest of one Shri S.K.Nigam respondent No.3 who was initially transferred to Sironj and not to grant him adjustment his transfer has been canceled and petitioner is being posted. That apart, pointing out various difficulties due to ailment of the petitioner and the treatment undertaken by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer. Smt. Bohre learned counsel for the respondents points out that even though Shri S.K.Nigam was transferred initially but on representation his transfer has been modified and instead...
The Managing Director M.P.Warehousing and Logistics Vs. M/S Agronomy S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Managing Director, MP Warehousing & Logistics Corporation & Others versus M/s Agronomy Services and others 05.12.2012. Shri P.N.Dubey for the applicants. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for non-applicant No.1. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for non- applicants 2 and 3. Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate, appears for the Uco Bank, Piplani, Bhopal, as an Intervener. This application has been filed for clarification of an order passed by this Court on 29.2.2012, in Writ Petition No.8435/2010. Office has raised an objection that a review application should have been filed and 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 fi...
Balmoo Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20257/2012 (Balmoo Baiga & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 05.12.2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioners against respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are Sarpanch and Secretary respectively of the Gram Panchayat Majhketa, Tahsil Manpur, District Umaria. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of complaints being filed by the petitioners before the authorities, no action thereon has been taken by them. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.It is however observed that the petitioneRs.complaint has been taken cognizance of and the Tahsildar, Manpur, District Umaria has issued a notice to the petitioners on 30.10.2012 for the purpose of taking up further proceedings in t...
Samir Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No19992/2012 05.12.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by the petitioner that on account of his selection for posting on deputation, the order of deputation posting was issued. Making certain reports with respect to performance of duties it was informed to the Commissioner Rewa that petitioner had committed misconduct on account of which he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.10.2012. The facts were represented by the petitioner before the said authority pointing out that for the alleged misconduct, he could not have been placed under suspension as no misconduct was committed by him. The Commissioner asked for the comments on the said representation which according to the petitioner were given by the Collector on 16.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »