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.
B.R.Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
B.R.Thakre versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11640 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Upper division Clerk in the office of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Development Department, Betul and by the impugned order dated 12.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to High School Basner Kala, Block Bhesdehi, in the same District Betul. Challenge to the transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner is suffering from certain ailment and is taking treatment at Shatayu Hospital Nagpur and if transfer is made the treatment of petitioner would be adversely affected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that petitioner is transferred from one place to another in the same district and on the ground raised by petitioner judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Petitioner is taking treatme...
Veer Bhadra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Veer Bhadra Singh Vs.State of MP & others W.P.No.10994/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Keeping in view the allegations of malafide made by the petitioner against Respondent No.5, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner at the instance of Respondent No.5 exoneration of the petitioner in the enquiry as is evident from Annexure-P8 and the subsequent decision to transfer the petitioner at the instance of a committee, in which Respondent No.5 was a member and prima-facie has been instrumental in transferring the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner, prima- facie, is taken only at the instance of Respondent No.5 and is not a decision administrative in nature. In view of the above, operation of the order Annexure- P10 dated 13.7.2012 is directed to be stayed till the next date of listing and petitioner permitted to work at his present place of post...
D.K. Shrivastava Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11521/12(S) 30-07-2012. Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Director in the department of Agriculture and by the impugned order dated 13-07-2012, he has been transferred from Jabalpur to Kuthalia, Rewa. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that the petitioner is Principal, Agriculture Extension & Training Centre, Jabalpur and if the petitioner is transferred there will no person to carry out the work at Jabalpur and development work would suffer. That apart it is stated that the petitioner is an elected President of a Gazetted Officer Association and therefore, the transfer is contrary to clause 9.23 of Transfer Policy. That apart it is stated that the transfer is made for giving benefit to the incumbent officer who is posted at his own request and therefore, the transfer is illegal. Finally pointing out certain p...
Awadhnarayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.934 o30. 7.2012 Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Dy.GA for respondent No.1. Shri Vineet Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent No.3,5 and 6 are still unserved. None for other served respondents. At the outset, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.6431/12 an application to substitute the legal representative of respondent No.13 on record with liberty to press IA No.6432/12 filed in this regard. Considering such prayer, IA No.6431/12 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid. Appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted period of one month to file appropriate application under order 22 rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement of the appeal caused on account of death of respondent No.13, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Virendra Chakravarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri Himanshu Mishra for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Chief Municipal Officer, Gairatganj, District Raisen as by the impugned order he is transferred to Sultanpur. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been posted in the present place only in June 2011 and, not the transfer of the petitioner is on the complaint of the Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Gairatganj one Smt. Janki Patel, who had made the complaint vide Annexure P/4, to the State Government. Against the Chairperson proceeding for her removal under section 41 is pending and, therefore, challenge is made to the impugned action. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1, the Secretary of the Department, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner after taking note of the allegations made by the petitioner. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo...
Lalbhan Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Lalbhan Singh versus State W.P.No.11363/2012 30/7/2012: Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy.Govt.Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Forester under Beat In-charge Hardua Range- Tejgarh, District Damoh and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to another Beat in the same District and challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has 10 months to retire. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that petitioner has been transferred from one Beat to another in the same district. On the aforesaid ground canvassed judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Petition is therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Diwan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Narendra Nikhare and Nishant Datt Advocates for the applicants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 20.6.2012 in connection with Crime No.141/2012 registered at P.S.Shahpura, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 452/34, 506, 454, 395 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Initially the offence was registered under sections 147, 294, 323, 452, 506-B of the IPC, thereafter sections 395, 454 of the IPC have been added. The investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The complainant himself entered into a compromise with the applicants, thus no case of decoity is made out against the applicants....
Devraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Devraj versus State of MP and another W.P.No.11454/2012 30/07/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla , learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Training Superintendent in ITI Mandla. Grievance of the petitioner is that the pay in the Time Scale of Pay of ` 15600+5400 is not paid to the petitioner. Records indicate that the State Government has approved grant of appropriate pay scale to the petitioner vide orders Annexure-P5 & P6 and Respondent No.2 is required to take action in the matter. Considering the aforesaid, Respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to grant of pay scale to the petitioner after taking note of the directions issued by the State Government vide Annexure-P5 & P6. Necessary orders be passed within a period of one month 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 Devraj versus State of MP and another...
Shivakant Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012: Shri V.P.Singh for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. GA, for the State. Petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed ...
Prathuraja Vs. Smt. Basanti Pal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.764 o30. 7.2012 Shri Chandrahas Dubey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ishtihaq Hussain, for respondent No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3 to 5. Ku Savita Choudhary, PL for respondent No.6. Counsel of respondent No.1 and 2 seeks for and is granted period of three weeks to file the reply of IA No.6315/12 appellants application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC. Let this matter be listed immediately after three weeks or in any case in the week commencing 3.9.2012. The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »