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.
Lala Ram Rakha Mal Trust (Nyas) Vs. All India Council for Technical Ed ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.20918/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for respondents. It is submitted by the petitioner that vide order Annexure P-1 approval was granted to the petitioner institution for certain courses, but the said approval has not been extended to the petitioner institution vide order dated 16.10.2012 Annexure P-15(A).Against the order Annexure P-15A, an appeal Annexure P-16 is pending before respondent No.1 since 01.11.2012, who may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. The prayer made by the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondents, hence this petition is finally disposed of with following directions:- 1. Petitioner to move an application to respondent No.1 for expeditious hearing of the appeal (Annexure P-16) and along with the application the petitioner shall also enclose a copy of order Annexure P-15(A) and memo of appeal Annexure P-16.2. If any such prayer is made by the petition...
Shalini Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.1387/2012 20.12.2012 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the writ court in W.P.No.17565/2012, by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant, seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to complete the investigation, was disposed of finally with certain directions. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.was filed before the concerned Magistrate, who under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.sent the matter to the concerned police station. The police registered the F.I.R.but has not investigated the matter, so the petitioner had approached the writ court for aforesaid direction, but the matter has been disposed of by the writ court observing that the petitioner may approach the concerned police authorities for mitigation of her grievances. It is submitted that once the...
Anju Kasar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.21038/2012 (Anju Kasar versus State of M.P.& ors.) 20.12.2012 Heard Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by show cause notice dated 16.10.2012 issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Balaghat seeking to pass orders against him under the provisions of Section 5 of the M.P.State Security Act, 1990. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the same offences, which have been relied upon by the respondents, he had been previously externed in 2003, 2005 and 2006 and the respondents authorities are not again proposing to initiate proceedings against him, therefore, the impugned show cause notice be quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petition has been filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice issued to him and the respondent authorities are yet to take a deci...
Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.20283 / 2012 (Anil Kumar Tiwari ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.20-12-2012 Shri A.K.Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Hoshangabad to decide the objections of the petitioner regarding the power of the Collector to include the name of the respondent No.4 in the hotel bar licence granted to the petitioner or to transfer it in the name of some other person and other ancillary issues after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order thereon. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on applying for grant of a hotel bar licence was granted the same for the period 1-4-2012 to 31-3-2013. It is stated that su...
Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.A.No.1374/2012 Surendra Prasad Shukla State of M.P.& another 20.12.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 5.11.2012 in W.P.No.18755/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against rejection of representation against the transfer order in compliance of earlier order of writ Court dated 6.9.2012 in W.P.No.14417/2012 was dismissed. However the appellant was permitted to retain the quarter till the end of academic session to facilitate the education of petitioner's daughter. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the transfer of appellant from Kurai to Kopi Jhola in the District Seoni is affecting the entire family of appellant. The daughter of the appellant is studying at Kurai and in the mid of the session appellant cannot be transferred from Kurai to Kopi Jhola. Apart from this, Kopi Jhola is an interior place where it is difficult for the petitioner's daughter t...
M/S Rishiraj Memorial Education and Welfare Society Vs. the Assistant ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20024 o20. 12.2012 Shri Sumit Nema, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents. Shri Lal prays for 10 days time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 10.1.2013 alongwith W.P.20018 of 2012 and other identical matters for analogous hearing. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the tax for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11, in respect of which appeals along with the applications for stay are stated to be pending before the respondent No.3. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.10190/2011 20/12/2012 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Seeking compassionate appointment after death of his father and challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is son of Late Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, who was working in the respondent's department as a Lower Division Clerk. Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh died on 22.7.1999 and at that time, petitioner was a minot and, therefore, after he attained majority, he filed an application seeking compassionate appointment. Petitioner wanted appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III or any other equivalent post. When no action was taken, he approached this Court in W.P.No.588/2008(s) and on 4.2.2011 vide order Annexure-P6, the said writ petition was disposed of and t...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ravendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.A.No.1355 of 2012 State & M.P.& others Ravinder Singh & ORS.20.12.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.For the appellants. Shri K.P.Singh, Counsel for the respondents. I.A.14921/12 for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons stated in the application and to the fact that the prayer made in the application is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Other office objections are ignored. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.11.2011 in W.P.(s) 10469/2004 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondents was disposed of finally in the light of another judgment of the Bench in N.K.Rai and others versus State of M.P.& others [2005(5) MPHT 305 .This appeal is filed mainly on the ground that against the order passed in N.K.Rai, the State had preferred an S.L.P.before the Apex Court bearing No.26127/2004 in which interim order has been passed by the Apex Court. Learned counsel appearing for the responden...
Sunil Jaiswal Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.21601/2012 Sunil Jaiswal versus Ramesh Chandra & ORS.21.12.2012 Shri Devesh Khatri learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the competent forum prescribed under the M.P.Land Revenue Code. It is observed that in case the petitioner approaches the authority within fifteen days alongwith an application for stay, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the appellate authority or the revisional authority, as the case may be, would take up and pass orders on the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner as early as possible. To enable the petitioner to obtain interim ordeRs.status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties for a period of fifteen days. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
The Educational Society for Career Development Th:dr. Sanjay Choudhary ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.20878/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. G.A., for respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri P.K.Kaurav along with Kamlesh Dwivedi, counsel for respondents No.4 & 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the affiliation of petitioners institution has not been cancelled by the State Government and on wrong premises, the respondents No.3 & 4 are not permitting the students of the petitioners College to appear in the ensuing examination of B.B.A.and B.C.A.courses scheduled from 21st December, 2012. It is submitted that till date the State Government has not cancelled the affiliation of the petitioners institution. Considering the aforesaid position, we direct Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 to seek instructions from respondents No.2 and 3 in respect of the factual position and to apprise this Court in this regard on the next date of hearing. For this purpose, we adjourn hearing of this petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »