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.
Amresh Kumar Gautam Vs. Barkatullah Vishwa Vidyalya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
1...W.P.No.18642 of 2012 A.K.Goutam Barkatullah University & ORS.05.12.2012 Shri O.P.Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for two week's time to file reply on behalf of the respondents. Prayer is opposed by the petitioner on the ground that on 9.11.2012 itself copy of petition was served upon the respondents. Being an educational matter involving prayer of the petitioner to appear in the ensuing examination scheduled from 12.12.2012, such time may not be allowed and the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, prayer of the respondents for filing reply is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 11.12.2012. During this period, respondents shall permit the petitioner to submit his form to appear in the ensuing supplementary examination of B.H.M.S., alongwith the requisite fees. However, it shall be subject to further ...
Bhumika Pasari Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalal Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.20182/2012 (Bhumika Pasari versus R.D.V.V & Ors.) 05.12.2012 Shri Manish sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the M.Sc.(Microbiology) FiRs.Semester Examination, wherein she had been granted provisional admission. It is however an admitted fact that the petitioner has not cleared her B.Sc. Course, which is a prerequisite and mandatory qualification for being granted admission in M.Sc. CouRs.as she could not appear in the B.Sc. Final Semester Examination on account of the fact that she fell seriously ill and was under constant treatment from 29.07.2012 to 04.08.2012. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual position to the effect that the petitioner has not passed her B.Sc. CouRs.and that she is yet to appear in the B.Sc. Final Semester, the relief...
Syed Akhtar Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Syed Akhtar Ali & Others versus State of MP and others 05.12.2012. Shri Sanjay Singh for the petitioneRs.Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioners claim to be working as daily wage employees in respondents department since 1992 and have filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of...
Sushma Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
1 W.P.No.20313/2012 Sushma Uikey versus State of M.P.& ORS.05.12.2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the Collector, Mandla to decide the representation filed by him on 27.9.2012 praying for implementation of the order passed by the Collector himself on 28.8.2012. Shri S.M.Lal, the learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the Collector, Mandla within fifteen days, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with l...
The Managing Director M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Vs. M/S Fortune W ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Managing Director, MP Warehousing & Logistics Corporation & Others versus M/s Fortune 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 29.2.2012, in Writ Petition No.8433/2010. 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 ...
U.S. Kushwaha Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.17922/2012 05.12.2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.2 and 4, on advance copy. The petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on re-organisation of State of Madhya Pradesh and carving of a new State of Chhattisgarh. The order of allocation was challenged by the petitioner. This Court on earlier occasion disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner directing that if any representation is made before the High Power Screening Committee constituted by the Central Government, the representation of the petitioner be decided. In terms of the order passed by this Court, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the Central Government as is reflected in Annx.P/2. After rejection of the representation, it appears that the same was called in question in a writ petition filed before this Court, but that too was not entertained. However, on some misrepresentation or otherwise the ...
Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Rani Durgawati Viswavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
W.P.No.19828/2012 05.12.2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that this petition was filed for declaration of result of petitioner's daughter of B.Sc. (Microbiology) in which the petitioner's daughter appeared in the examination conducted by respondents in the month of August, 2012, but after filing of this petition, the result of petitioner's daughter has been declared, but belatedly. It is submitted that though this petition was filed for declaration of result of petitioner's daughter, but because of non-declaration of result, the petitioner's daughter has suffered a lot of mental agony, as her admission in Indian Business School at Hyderabad could have been canceled because of non-declaration of result, so petitioner or his daughter is entitled for compensation in this regard. In view of aforesaid, petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to make such prayer in accordance with law in appropriate...
R.K. Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
r.k.jhariya versus state W.P.No.20209/2012 5.12.2012: Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and has been transferred from Samanapur, District Dindori to District Chhindwara. Inter alia contending that his transfer will cause serious difficulties, he has submitted a representation and when the same was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P.No.11592/2012 and this Court on 30.7.2012 disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation is considered and rejected vide Annexure P/1 on 29.8.2012 and again petitioner is before this Court challenging the action. It is pointed out that petitioner does not want to remain in Dindori but is willing to go on transfer but his contention is that due to ailment of his son, he has requested for his posting in neighbor...
Bhagwat Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
..1.. W.A.No.1036/11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Writ Appeal No.1036/2011 Bhagwat Singh Thakur S/o Shri Shivdas Singh Thakur aged about 48 years, Conductor Piparia Depot R/o Behind R.N.A. School, Sardar Ward Piparia, Tehsil Piparia, District Hoshangabad M.P. ........Appellant Vs.1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Principal Secretary Ministry of Transport, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P.2. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Through, Managing Director O/o Habibganj, Bhopal (MP) 3. Assistant Labour and Personnel Officer, Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.) Respondents Writ Appeal No.276/2012 Prathvi Vallabh Singh S/o late Kunwar Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o House No.1396, Wright Town, Jabalpur M.P. ........Appellant Vs.1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through its Secretary Transport Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P.2. Managing Director, M.P. Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Habibg...
Siyaram Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Siyaram Raikwar versus State of MP and others 05.12.2012. Shri Jitendra Dixit for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in Nagar Panchayat Chandla, Distict Chhatarpur since 1996 and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case 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 receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »