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.
Ramkalesh Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11293/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Sharad Verma , 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 frequent orders of transfer passed within short periods, transferring the petitioner from one place to another, as is evident from Annexure-P3, P4 and P5, operation of the impugned order of transfer Annexure-P6 dated 15.7.2012, so far as it relates to the petitioner is directed to be stayed till the next date of listing and petitioner permitted to work at the present place of posting, particularly when the petitioner is posted in the present place only vide order Annexure-P5 dated 29.3.2012. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
Prateek Vajpayee Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11271/2012 27/07/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit , learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an employee of an Autonomous Institute and there is a prohibition with regard to the transfer of employees of one autonomous body to another and in various writ petitions, orders have been passed staying such transfeRs.operation of the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed and petitioner permitted to work at the present place of the posting at Bhopal till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
Tarun Kumar JaIn Vs. Poonam Chand Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 W.P.No.10576/12 Tarun Kumar Jain & another Poonam Chand Jain & another 26.7.2012 Shri Subodh Kathar, Counsel for petitioneRs.This petition is directed against an order dated 8.5.2012 by which the trial Court i.e.Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Amarwada rejected the application filed by the petitioner for registration of the suit and directed the petitioners to make payment of ad valorem court-fee on the suit. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and for perpetual injunction. Both reliefs were separately valued and the petitioners have paid separate court-fee on each of the reliefs. It was also submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property and they were not required to make payment of ad valorem court-fee on the value of the suit property. It was submitted by Shri Kathal that the Court below without considering the provisions as contained Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act has pass...
Gulab Singh Madavi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1....W.P.No.11223 of 2012 Gulab Singh Madavi State of M.P.& ORS.26.7.2012 Shri Kabir Giri, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. G.A.for the respondents. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P-4 dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner who is an Upper Division Teacher has been transferred from Middle School, Sonpuri to Higher Secondary School, Garhi in the block Baihar of the said district. It was submitted that the aforesaid transfer order is contrary to the instructions issued by the Election Commission as the petitioner is discharging the duties of Booth Level Officer, Sonpuri for the preparation of the electoral rolls. On the aforesaid ground this Court cannot interfere in the transfer order. It is for the respondents to follow the instructions issued by the Election Commission and to act upon it. In view of the aforesaid, at this stage, no interference is required in the transfer order. However, petitioner may submit a representation to respondent No.3 for...
M/S Geo Millers and Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 AC No.56/2011 26/7/2012: Shri S.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal learned counsel with Shri Amit Seth, for the respondents. After having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time, this Court was inclined to decide the matter keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.State Rural Road Development Authority versus M/s L.B.Choudhary - 2012(3) SCC Page.475. It was the considered view of this Court that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid case and in view of provision of Clause 30 of the arbitration agreement jurisdiction to deal with the matter vests exclusively with the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal constituted under M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983. Shri S.K.Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the question which was before the Supreme Court in the case of L.B.Choudhary (supra) is itself referred for reconsideration to a larger Bench recently by the Supreme Court and a Divisi...
Smt. Dasoda Bai Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 W.P.No.10555/12 Smt.Dasoda Bai Ahirwar State of M.P.& others 26.7.2012 Shri Sourabh Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri S.Roy, Counsel for State. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing no.81/A-27/01-02 is pending since 2001 before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur who may be directed to decide the matter after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for respondents., hence this petition is finally disposed of with following directions:- (i) Petitioner to move an application before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur for expeditious hearing of the aforesaid appeal. (ii) If such prayer is made by the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur shall expedite the hearing of the appeal and shall make endeavour to hear the appeal preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the...
Vikash Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.P.No.9922/2012 Vikash Gupta versus State of MP and others 26.07.2012 Heard Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities not to conduct an enquiry prior to issuance of order of preventive detention under the National Security Act against the brother of the petitioner on the basis of his previous record. Admittedly, at this stage no oder of detention has been passed against the brother of the petitioner not has he received any notice in accordance with the provisions of the law to the effect that the authorities are proposing to take action against his brother. Quite apart from the above, this petition has been filed by the brother of the petitioner against whom action is sought to be taken which apparently and prima facie appears to be not maintainable. In the circumstances, as no cause of action arises for adjudication at this stag...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Janki Rajak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 1 Writ Petition No.10237/2012 26.07.2012 Shri R.P.Khare, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard. This petition is directed against an order dated 11.5.2012 passed by FiRs.Civil Judge Class 2, Bijawar, by which prayer of the petitioner for issuance of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C.for spot inspection was declined. The court below found that earlier an application of the same nature was rejected and the commission in the case is not required as it is a matter of evid- ence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though tried to assail the aforesaid order but considering the findings recorded by the trial court, this court is not inclined to interfere in the mat- ter. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may move a fresh ap- plication after closure of the evidence of both the parties if the po- sition as appearing on the spot cannot be clarified. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this ground in appeal, if such occasion arises to the petitioner. With the...
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Naina (Kothi) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 W.P.No.6359/2012 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Naina versus State of M.P.& ORS.26.07.2012 Shri Shreyas Pandit learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Upendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Avinash Zargar learned counsel for respondent no.5. Heard on I.A No.6480/2012 for vacating stay. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 that the present petition has been filed against an interim order staying the operation of the order of his removal by the Collector from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Naina Kothi, District Satna and is, therefore, not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, per contra, submits that as the interim order has been passed on a second application, therefore, he has filed the present petition assailing the order passed by the Commissioner, Revenue Division Rewa in Case No.638/Appeal/11-12. Be that as it may, as it is pointed out by both the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the r...
Narayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.P.No.9912/12 (Narayan versus The State of MP and otheRs.26.07.2012 Heard Shri Sachin Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the Police authorities on the complaint filed by him. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/the Superintendent of Police, Betul to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. To enable the respondents No.2 to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions the petition, filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »