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.
Bharatlal Bajbhiye Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11134/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be worked as an Assistant Revenue Inspector (Moharir) Nagar Parishad, Barghat. By the impugned order Annexure-P1 dated 14.7.2012, he has been transferred from Nagar Parishad Barghat District-Seoni to Nagar Palika Gadarwara, District Narsingpur. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the designation of the petitioner is shown as Assistant Grade-III, whereas in the service book and other documents filed, petitioner is shown to be an Assistant Revenue Inspector (Moharir).therefore, petitioner's transfer treating him to be an Assistant Grade-III which is not correct, is unsustainable, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Considering the aforesaid grounds, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detail claim in this regard before the competent authority, who has issued the order of transfer, the matter shall be reconsidered an...
Ghasi Ram Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
27.07.2012. Shri Atul Rai for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Petitioner is working as a Carpenter in respondents department. Interalia contending that he has been retired at the age of 60 years and is entitled to work upto the age of 62 yeaRs.he has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that in the year 2002, petitioner was proposed to be retired from service on the ground that he has completed 30 years of service. At that point of time petitioner challenged the same and contended that he has not attained the age of 60 years and, therefore, he cannot be retired after completing 30 years of service. The matter was considered by the State Administrative Tribunal and vide order-dated 17.6.2002 passed in O.A.No.250/2002 Annexure P/2, the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and it was held by the Tribunal that petitioner is working as a Carpenter, which is classified as a Class III post in the Schedule to the MP PWD Work charged and...
M.S. Rajput Vs. M.P. State Seed Certification Agency
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11264/2012 27/07/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit , learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already been allocated to the State of Chhatisgarh and the matter is pending before this Court in W.P.No.9485/2006(s).respondents are directed not to implement the impugned order of transfer so far as it pertains to the petitioner instead consider his claim for permitting him to work on the present place taking note of the grievance made by the petitioner particularly with regard to education of his children. Till the order on such reconsideration is not passed, petitioner be permitted to work in the present place of posting. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
Dr.Kamal Raj Pardasani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11017/2012 Dr. Kamal Raj Pardasani versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.07.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. From a perusal of the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is only seeking a direction to the respondent Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to forward the verification report of the petitioner which is pending since February 2011 and is necessary for confirming the appointment of the petitioner. It is also observed that the petitioner has filed reminders before the concerned authority on 2.2.2011, 12.10.2011 and 16.3.2012 which have not yielded any result. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the verification report of the petitioner shall be processed expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to process and forward the verification report of the petitioner as earl...
Sandeep Veer Sakray Vs. Smt. Aarti Veer Sakray(Soni)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10310 / 2012 (Sandeep Veer Sakre .v.Smt. Aarti Veer Sakre) 27-07-2012 Heard Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the effect that the amount of Rs.1500/- being paid to the respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act be adjusted while computing the amount of Rs.5000/- towards the maintenance awarded to the respondent on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by this Court in W.P.No.7769/2011 by order dated 9-2-2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previously the respondent's application claiming pendente lite maintenance filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was rejected by the Court in view of the fact that she was already receiving an amount of Rs.1500/- under the Domestic Violence Act, being aggrieved by which the respondent had filed W.P.No.1957/2010 which was allowed by order dated 24...
Govind Prasad Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10413/2012 27.7.2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 an...
Veman Palli Shrinivas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1387/2011 Mohan Singh @ Sukha Chauhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri I.K. Dwivedi, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri R. P. Tiwari, Government Advocate. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19.5.2011, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullahganj, District Sehore in ST. No.48/11 whereby the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 and 420 of I.P.C and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for three months rigoro...
Manranjan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.10416/2012 27/7/2012: Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15760/2011 (s).In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of the stipulation contained in Rule 6(5) of the M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules 2005 as was in force before the amendment and to take a decision with regard to appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III and to communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indica...
Chhotelal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1549 OF 199.Chhotelal. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of July, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3/9/1996 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act.) Sidhi in Special Case No.92/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act, 1989 and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo one month's r...
Salim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11272/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Om Namdeo , learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been transferred on more than five occasions between the year 2006 to 2012 and he had joined at the present place of posting only in June, 2011, transfer of the petitioner in such a short period seems to be unsustainable, operation of the impugned order Annexure-P5 dated 13.7.2012, so far as it pertains to the petitioner shall remain stayed and petitioner permitted to work at the present place of the posting till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »