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.
Pradeep Kumar Sodhi Vs. Western Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.2604/2012 Pradeep Kumar Sodi versus Western Coalfield LTD.& ORS.30.07.2012 Shri Suraj Verma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 4.2.2012 by which he is sought to be superannuated from service w.e.f.31.7.2012 from the post of Senior Clerk. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the statutory Form-B register by the authorities, at the time of entry into service, was 2.5.1958 however, subsequently the authorities have scored out the said date of birth and have recorded 5.7.1952 as his date of birth by making correction on 2.2.2012 and by the impugned communication he has been informed that he would superannuate w.e.f.31.7.2012. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth entered in the Form-B ...
General Manager (Randr) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.311/2012 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.4884/12 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 13.4.2012, 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.3457/12 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 securi...
R.K. Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.11513/2012 R.K.Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.07.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 4.6.2012 by which the petitioner was directed to attend the two months training programme in Skill Development and Attitudinal Orientation CouRs.at Indore as well as the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rewa whereby the petitioner has been line attached on account of the fact that he has deliberately not attended the training by taking the excuse of illness. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was infact suffering from illness for which he has filed a medical certificate before the authorities overlooking which the Superintendent of Police, Rewa has passed the order dated 28.6.2012. The...
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Amarchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.434/2012 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.7075/12 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.4892/12 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...
Vijay Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11403/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Atul Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Patwari' in Tehsil Raghurajnagar, Distt. Satna. He has been transferred to Tehsil Nagod in the same district of Satna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is holding the post of 'Secretary' in the Madhya Pradesh Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers and Employees Association and in view of the policy of the State Govt. , he could not be transferred. Merely, because the policy of the State Govt. in transferring the petitioner is violated, interference into the matter is not called for particularly in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and otheRs.I.L.R. [2007].M.P. 1329 . That apart, the other grounds raised are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner on the basis of which judicial review into a...
Shanker Titare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.262/2012 registered at P.S.Sarni, District Betul for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is the husband of complainant Pooja. The complainant has deserted the house of the applicant long back, thereafter, the applicant tried his level best to bring her back and filed an application before Parivar ParamaRs.Kendra, but she did not turn up, thereafter she filed a false and concocted report against the applicant. The applicant is a government servant, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished and service will be affected, therefore, he be...
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. M/S Aurotech Group
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.88 o30. 7.2012 Shri A.P.Shroti, counsel for the appellants. Shri Akshay Sapre, for respondents No.1 and 2. Ku Savita Choudhary, PL for respondent No.3. Heard on IA No.1499/10 appellants application under Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC for grant of stay against execution of the impugned money decree. On earlier occasion, vide order dated 12.9.2011, subject to depositing fifty percent of the decreetal sum, the recovery of remaining sum was stayed. Having heard, in the available circumstances, the appellants are directed to deposit the remaining decreetal sum with the trial court within sixty days from today and the trial/executing court is directed to deposit such entire decreetal sum with some nationalized bank under sum fixed deposit scheme with stipulation of its periodical revival until further order of this court. Till this extent the earleir interim stay order is modified. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Vidhyarthi Prasad Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Vidyarthi Prasad Gautam versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11749 30. 7.2012: Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Satpura Padiwar, Janpad Panchayat Teonthar, District Rewa, he has been transferred to Village Panchayat Dodkiya in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner has under gone by- pass surgery very recently and, therefore, transfer will adversely affect his recovery. That apart, it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred without consent of the Gram Panchayat to which he is transferred and, therefore, transfer is illegal. Records indicate that pointing out all these grievances petitioner has already represented before the Commissioner of district concerned. Considering the same, without entering into controveRs.on merits the petition is disposed of with direction to the Commiss...
Mithlesh Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Mithlesh Pandey versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11610 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a Constable in Police Department and is posted in Police Line Anooppur. By the impugned order dated 15.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to District Umariya by the Inspector General of Police Shahdol Zone. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner is shown to have been transferred on complaint and for the said complaint petitioner has already been punished vide Annexure P-3 and, therefore, transfer on said ground is unsustainable. That apart it is pointed out that petitioner holds a post in the district cadre and, therefore, his transfer out of district would adversely affect his seniority and on the said ground it is stated that transfer is illegal. Smt. Bohra, learned counsel for the State refutes the aforesaid contention and ...
Ashish Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Public Service Manageme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.11509/2012 Ashish Thakur versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.07.2012 Heard Shri Ritesh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has filed this petition raising several issues, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation before the Collector, Damoh bringing to his notice the illegal manner in which tender application filed by the petitioner and others have been rejected and, therefore, the petition be disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Damoh to decide the same. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, on advance copy, submits that the representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided 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 approaches the respondent no.2 Collector, Damo...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »