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.
Aditya Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Aditya Prasad Tripathi and others versus State of MP and others 05.12.2012. Shri Arun Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance notice. Heard. In this writ petition, petitioners inter-alia seek a direction to the respondents to declare them qualified in the test which was held for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioner holds D.Ed. degree and therefore they are entitled to 20 marks under the rules namely Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment & Conditions of Contract Rules, 2005. However, the petitioners are not awarded 20 marks. It is further submitted the petitioners be granted liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority with regard to their grievance and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation which may be ...
Arun Chandra Bhurtiya Vs. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Viswavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
1...W.P.No.20277 of 2012 Arun Chandra & ors APS University & ORS.05.12.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Neeraj Singh, Counsel for the respondents. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. G.A.for the respondent No.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was admitted in B.C.A.couRs.and petitioner No.2 in B.Co.couRs.vide Annexure P-2 in the month of July,2012. Subsequently, on their request, respondent No.2 had changed their subjects and both were given admission in B.B.A.couRs.and their changed subjects were duly ported on the website by respondent No.2. As per Annexure P-4, their names are appearing at Sr.No.112 and 122 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 University is not permitting them to appear in B.B.A.examination but has issued admit card for the examination of B.C.A.and B.Co.courses respectively. It is submitted that once their admissions were changed for B.B.A., they are entitled to appear in the examination. It is sta...
Dr.Saurabh Maheshwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Writ Petition No.7936 o04. 12/2012 Shri Sanklap Kochar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Government Advocate for the State. Shri Sanklap Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be allowed a short time to file an application for taking rejoinder on record. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners to serve a copy of the rejoinder to learned counsel for the State, within a period of three working days against acknowledgment. In this petition, a moot question is whether the petitioneRs.who are Post Graduate in various subjects are directed to serve in the rural areas, on the ground that before getting education, they had executed a bond in this regard to serve in the rural areas. It is submitted that there are no basic facilities in the rural areas so that the Doctors having Post Graduate qualification can not serve in the rural areas. On raising such contention, Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate prays for short time to se...
Smt. Geeta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.20334/2012 (Smt. Geeta versus State of MP and otheRs.04.12.2012 Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by wrongful rejection of her nomination paper which she had filed for contesting the election on the post of Agriculturist member of the Mandi Samiti, Kevlari District Seoni. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this court rendered in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh Tomar versus State of MP and others 2005 (4) MPLJ 54 and the Supreme Court in the case of Manda Jaganath versus K.S.Rathnam and others 2004 (7) SCC 49.and I.L.R.1991 (Kar) 4421 L. Ramakrishnappa versus Presiding Officer that in cases of illegal and wrongful rejection of nomination paper, the petitioner can avail remedy of filing the writ petition to assail the same. The learned Dy. A.G.for the Stat...
Dadooji Bisen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.5933/2006 (S) Dadooji Bisen Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri R.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (04.12.2012) This writ petition is nothing but an outcome of the gross negligence of discharge of duties by the official respondents in the matter of settlement of pensionary claims of a retired Govt. servant. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department on which post he worked for a period of 13 years. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after 'Commission' for brevity) advertised the posts of Excise Sub Inspectors. The petitioner was willing to take...
Aegis Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.19469/2012 04.12.2012 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. In compliance of the earlier order this case is placed before me alongwith W.P.No.19441/2012. Keeping in view the order passed in W.P.No.19441/2012 vide order dated 13.11.2012 separate interim order is not required in the present petition at this stage. Such question shall be considered after hearing the matter on admission. The aforesaid observation has been made keeping in view that the present petition has been filed by the tenant of the petitioner of W.P.No.19441/2012 who is alleged to be the owner of the property, as submitted by the petitioner's counsel. Let this matter be listed after a week alongwith W.P.No.19441/2012 as reference case. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Jitendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W. P. No.17290/2012 4.12.2012. Shri S. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for following reliefs:1. To call the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.2. To direct the respodents No.1 and 2 to give back the possession of the petitioner of the part of land bearing Khasra No.274 situated at village Raksahakala, Tehsil Teonthar, District Rewa (M.P.) according to the old field book.3. To direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to inspect the spot and after removing the encroachment created by respondent No.7, Government path may be opened.4. To direct the respondents to not to disposes the petitioner from his own land bearing Khasra No.274 situated at Village Raksahakala, Tehsil Teonthar, District Rewa.5. To direct the respondents to maintain the status-quo according to the previous demarcation dated 5.5.2000 and order ...
Satyendra Nath Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.A.No.615/2011 4.12.2012 Shri P.Pareekh, counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.4.2011 passed in W.P.No.574/2010, by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The contentions of the appellant are : (i) That the Pension Payment Order has been issued by respondent nos.2 & 5, while it ought to have been issued by respondent nos.3 & 4. The Pension Payment Order is Annexure P-1 filed alongwith the petition. (ii) That while issuing Pension Payment Order, circular Annexure P-5 was not followed. On being asked, learned counsel for appellant submitted that till date appellant is not getting any pension. The aforesaid contention will be considered after hearing both the parties, but at present we are concerned why the pension has not been paid to the appellant in spite of issuance of Pension Payment Order long back on 23.2.2008 and a period of nearabout quarter to five years has elapsed. In the ...
Smt. Sudha Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Smt. Sudha Shukla & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.18094/2011 04/12/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned P.L.for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 8. While hearing the writ petition, it is seen that in the matter of transfer of the petitioner, certain allegations were levelled against Respondent No.4 Shri G.P.Patel, the District Education Officer, Sidhi. It is not reported that this officer has retired. Taking note of the fact that there were serious allegations against Respondent No.4 Shri G.P.Patel, an objection was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and on 28.11.2011 Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were directed to file a return supported by an officer, who was not a party. The second reply is filed and the said reply is filed under the signature and affidavit by the Joint Director Rewa. The allegations levelled in this writ petition and the grounds canvassed and the justific...
Baban and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.1321/2004 1. Baban, son of Natthu Sarode, aged 25 years.2. Pramod, son of Raghunath Ingole, aged 26 years.3. Rajendra @ Rajoo, son of Ashotkar, aged 26 years. All residents of Piplanarayanwar, P.S. Lodhikheda, Tehsil Sonsar, District Chhindwara, M.P.. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Lodhi Kheda, Tehsil Sonsar, District Chhindwara, M.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants: Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.734/2005 Vilas, son of Dondbaji Ladse, aged about 21 years, resident of Piplanarayanwar, P.S. Lodhi Kheda, Tehsil Sonsar, District Chhindwara. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Lodhi Kheda, Tehsil Sonsar, District...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »