Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
indal Yadav Vs. Superintending Engineer [Transmission and Maintenance]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.10234/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Line Helper' in the respondents' establishment and is posted at Betul and by the impugned order, he has been transferred from one Sub Division to the Distribution Center Saawalmedha in the same district of Betul. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is a low paid employee and the transfer is unsustainable. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is transferred from one Sub Division to another in the same district, on the grounds raised in this writ petition, no case is made out for interference into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this writ petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Kodulal Verma Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Kodulal Verma versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11532/2012 30/07/2012 Shri A.K.Shukla , learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Head Master in Government Primary School Korwara District-Satna. By the impugned order dated 15.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Government Middle School Karsara in the same district. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to ailment of his wife and education of his children. Challenge is not made on the grounds of statutory provisions being violated or any malafide made out from the material available on record. Finding no case made out for interference, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 Kodulal Verma versus State of MP and others...
Yogesh Kumar Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Yogesh Kumar Chouhan versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11711 30. 7.2012: Shri S.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Asst. Teacher in Government Primary School, Kumhari, Balaghat, District Balaghat, by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Government Primary School, Umari, Sankul Mohjhari, Block Lanji, Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner's wife is also Teacher in Government Primary School, at Choti Kumhari, Janpad Panchayat, Balaghat, she is working as Shiksha Karmi and if petitioner is transferred to place about 70 kms away, it will cause serious inconvenience to the petitioner. That apart pointing out various personal inconvenience challenge is made to the impugned oder of transfer. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that petitioner is only transferred fr...
General Manager (R and R) Narmada Hydro-electrict Development Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.241/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2, 3 & 4. I.A.No.3197/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 6.3.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2,3 & 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.I.A.No.2798/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish securit...
General Manager (Randr) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.266/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2, 3 & 4. I.A.No.3196/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 6.3.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2,3 & 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.I.A.No.3131/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish securit...
Desh Raj Kushwaha Vs. M.P.S.E.B.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Desh Raj Kushwaha Vs.M.P.S.E.B & another W.P.No.10111/2012 30/07/2012 Shri D.K.Khare , learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is the son of Late Shri Gore Lal Kushwaha, who was working as a Lineman in the Respondent's establishment and has died in harness on 10.3.1994. Claiming compassionate appointment, petitioner has represented to the respondents and as the representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending, this writ petition is filed. Keeping in view the fact that the claim of the petitioner is still pending, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after taking note of the policies applicable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 Desh Raj Kushwaha Vs.M.P.S.E.B & another...
Smt.Femida Vs. Mohabbat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.265/2007 30.7.2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dilip Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2-A to 2-I, although served. In response of some query of the court, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.8138/12, an application for issuing ad interim injunction against the appellant with liberty to press IA No.3080/12, filed earlier under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, r/ w Section 151 of CPC. Considering such order IA No.8138/12 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid. Respondent's counsel seeks for and is granted the period of three weeks to file the reply of IA No.3880/12. Let this matter be listed alongwith F.A.No.266/2007 after three weeks for consideration of IA No.3880/12 only. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Kishanlal Vs. Todal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.141/2005 30.7.2012 None for the appellant. Sole respondent is dead. Shri M.K.Sanghi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of deceased respondent and submits that he has not received a copy of IA No.8342/12, appellant's application to substitute legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. As after death of sole respondent the engagement of aforesaid counsel has come to end, therefore supplying a copy of aforesaid IA to him is not necessary. Shri Sanghi fairly submits that he did not have any instructions from the proposed legal representatives of respondent. On payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within seven days notice of IA No.8342/12, appellant's application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, returnable by fixing a date in the week commencing 17.9.2012 be issued to the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent mentioned in such IA, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. ( U.C.M...
Suresh Chandra Saxena Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Suresh Chandra Saxena versus Union of India and others W.P.No.10060/2012 30/07/2012 Shri D.P.Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is an employee working in the establishment of the West Central Railway and has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway Jabalpur Division Jabalpur in the matter of fixation of pay and pension of the petitioner. Petitioner is an employee of the Railway Establishment and the dispute in question pertains to a service matter covered under the provisions of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the jurisdiction to deal with the matter rests exclusively to the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and as this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the writ petition filed under 226 of the Constitution, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitio...
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Mangi Lal (D) Thr Lrs Harakchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.478/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2 to 4. I.A.No.7072/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 22.6.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be summoned. I.A.No.5394/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »