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.
V.K.Pandey Vs. State of Mp and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.24518/2003 Vimal Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ____________________________________________________________ Shri P.R. Bhave, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondent-State. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (25/07/2012) This petition was originally filed as O.A. No.347/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and has been transmitted to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.2. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer (E/M) at the relevant time, had visited the Tribunal by way of filing of this original application ventilating his grievance against the order dated 03.01.2000 by which it was communicated to...
Raja Ram Patnakar Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR WP 4907/2010 (S) RAJARAM RATNAKAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 25/7/2012 Challenging an order passed by the Competent authority imposing minot punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect as contemplated under Rule 10 of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal, this writ petition has been filed. The impugned order of punishment is Annexure P/6 dated 5.11.2005 and the order of appellate authority is Annexure P/11 dated 4.10.2006. 2- Records indicate th...
Prembai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 1 Writ Appeal No.369/2011 25.07.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the re- spondents. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to specify :- i) whether the appellant who was earlier appointed as Anganwadi Worker was entitled to be appointed in the year 2000 under sub clause (6) of clause 1 of the circular dated 6.1.2000?. ii) Whether for the appointment, any applications were invited and no other candidate except the appellant was available for appointment on the post of Andan- wadi worker?. The relevant record of the appointment of the appellant be also produced by the respondents by the next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing in the last week of August, 2012. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge HS...
Laxminarayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.9977/12 25/07/12 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner was appointed as a 'Daily wages employee' in the year 1998. His services were terminated on 14/02/2000 and, thereafter, he has not been granted any benefit, he has filed this writ petition. Inter alia contending that claim of the petitioner has to be considered in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04, he is entitled to be reinstated in service, he has not been reinstated and other similarly situated persons have been reinstated. From the records, it is clear that petitioner has worked only for a period of 2 years from 1998 to 2000 and he claims benefit in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04. This Court had already held in various cases, that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and otheRs.2006 (4) SCC 1 , no direction for re...
Shiv Prasad Dehariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10668/2012 25/7/2012: Shri M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexure P/1 and P/5 passed by the Commissioner and the Collector respectively removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary. Record indicates that petitioner was working as a Panchayat Secretary, a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.1.2009 asking him to show cause as to why his notification as Panchayat Secretary should not be canceled. This show cause notice was issued on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Amarwada and a report submitted by him on 29.12.2008. Pointing out various irregularities committed by the petitioner and on the ground that petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice, impugned action was taken by the Collector. Petitioner challenged the order by filing an appeal before th...
Kashiram Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.8572/12 Kashiram Raikwar State of M.P.& others 25.7.2012 Petitioner Kashiram Raikwar alongwith Shri Ranveer Singh, Advocate, present. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Counsel alongwith respondent No.4. P.S.Cantt., Sagar have produced Geeta Raikwar, daughter of the petitioner, accompanied by lady constable Ms.Asha Hajari and Shri Rakshpal Singh Yadav, CSP. It was staed by Shri Rakshpal Singh Yadav that Geeta Raikwar alongwith respondent No.4 Ramprasad came to the Police Station from where she has been produced before this Court. We have enquired into from Geeta Raikwar. It was stated by her that she has married with respondent No.4 Ramprasad on 25.4.2011, but no documentary proof in this regard has been filed. She is having a female child in her lap stated to be 6 months old. As respondent No.4 Ramprasad and Geeta Raikwar have admitted that they have contracted marriage, both are major and even on the date of incident i.e.25.4.2011 bo...
Rahul Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 AFR HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Reference No.2/2011 IN REFEENCE Received from III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsinghpur, M.P.. Versus 1. Rahul Rajak, s/o Ashok Rajak, aged about 25 years, resident of Near Shyam Talkies, Narsinghpur (M.P.).2. Ashok Kumar, s/o Bhawani Prasad Vishwakarma, aged 37 years, resident of Ganesh Nagar, Bargi Colony, Narsinghpur, Police Station, Tehsil and District Narsinghpur (M.P.).3. Satish Parochi, s/o Imrat Lal Parochi, aged 28 years, resident of Housing Board Colony, Police Station, Narsinghpur (M.P.). ---------------------------------------------------------- For the State: Shri Umesh Pandey,Govt. Advocate. For the Complainant: Shri Surendra Singh,Sr. Advocate, with Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey, advocate. For the Respondents/: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate, Accused with Shri Siddharth Datt,Advocate, Shri R.S. Patel, Shri Alok Vagrecha, advocates. ------------------------------------------...
Pramod Kumar JaIn Vs. Shri K.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 Conc. No.110/2012 Pramod Kumar Jain Shri K.K.Singh & others 25.7.2012 Petitioner Pramod Kumar Jain present in person. Shri Munish Saini, Counsel for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though vide order dated 23.7.2012, the representation of the petitioner was decided, but in fact the respondent No.1 had delegated the enquiry to the Superintending Engineer who had not conducted the enquiry properly and merely on the basis of the report of the Superintending Engineer, respondent No.1 has decided the matter which cannot be treated as compliance of the order dated 4.5.2011 in Writ Appeal No.509/2011 and submits that the respondent No.1 has not complied with the order. By order dated 4.5.2011, the Division Bench of this Court has directed thus:- However, in view of the statement made by the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, we provide that in the event the appellant makes a representation before the respondent No.1 pursuant to the order of the learned Single Ju...
M/S Dimond Cement Vs. the Commissioner Commercial Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
VATA 14...
Abree Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Developme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10091/12 W.P.No.10095/12 W.P.No.10097/12 W.P.No.10098/12 25.7.2012 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondent No.1 Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.2. As controveRs.involved in these petitions- W.P.No.10091/12- M/s Unity Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10095/12-M/s Shubhanjali Constructions versus versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10097/12-M/s S & S Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation LTD.and W.P.No.10098/12- Arbee Contractors Pvt.LTD.versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., is identical and all the petitioners have received a notice from the respondent No.2 in respect of payment of service tax towards contract work performed by the petitioners with respondent No.1, all these cases are being decided by a common order. This order shall be applicable in all the petitions as far as it is applicable. Fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »