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.
Saraswati Mahila Mandal Swa Sahayata Samooh Salaiya Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.6379 / 2012 (Saraswati Mahila Mandal ..Vs.State of M.P.& otheRs.09-07-2012 Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 29-3-2012 wherein the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Collector, Jabalpur the fact that the respondent No.4, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kundam, District Jabalpur has passed orders in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7 in spite of the fact that the respondent No.3, Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Jabalpur has prohibited the respondents No.6 and 7 from operating the accounts. The learned panel lawyer appearing for the State...
Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
1 W.P.No.4198/2011 Vijay Bahadur Singh. versus State of M.P.& ORS.09.07.2012 Shri Surendra Singh learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.7, by manipulating the documents and by substituting the name of the petitioner, i.e.Vijay Bahadur Singh, Son of Mahadeo Singh in place of the actual accused Vijay Bahadur Singh, Son of Sshishupal Singh, has subjected the petitioner to a criminal trial being aggrieved by which the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Rewa as well as the Inspector General of Police, Rewa, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted and thereafter the Inspector General of Police, Rewa by his letter dated 28.5.2010 has directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa to move an application before the competent court through ...
Ramji Prasad Tiwari Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
09.07.2012. Shri Anirudh Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Interalia contending that after his retirement, pensionary claims have not been settled, petitioner has filed this writ petition. On notices being issued, respondents have filed a reply and have brought to the notice of this Court that the claim of the petitioner has been prepared and it has been forwarded to the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts for necessary approval and payment vide Annexure R/1 and as soon as the formalities are completed, the payment shall be made to the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid averments made by the respondents in the return and taking note of the communication made vide Annexure R/1 on 26.6.2012 to the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jabalpur. The said authority is directed to settle the pensionary claims of the petitioner in accordance to law as per his entitlement and make payment of all dues to the petitioner within a period of two m...
D.P. Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
09.07.2012. Shri A.D.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Principal in Government Higher Secondary School No.2, Niwari, District Tikamgarh. By the impugned order-dated 15.6.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Upani, District Sidhi. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is transferred to a school 462 Kms away only to accommodate respondent No.3. That apart, contending that petitioner has certain serious difficulties and pointing out various impediments, personal in nature, in carrying out the order of transfer, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner as is indicated hereinabove and considering the fact that the grounds are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer can be made by this Court, the petition is di...
Santosh Kumar Kostha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
1 09.07.2012: Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents. Petitioner belongs to Halba Community, which falls in the Scheduled Tribe Category. Certain benefits were granted to the petitioner on this count and on the ground that benefit was granted incorrectly, the same is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the benefit and consequential action taken is challenged by the petitioner in this case. It is stated by the petitioner that in his case no report was called from the High Power Committee. The question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner belongs to Halba community and whether he is entitled to the benefit, being member of Scheduled Tribe community. Even though respondents have tried to justify their action by filing a detailed return but during the pendency of this petition, policy with regard to granting benefit to the Halba community has undergone change and a policy decision was taken by th...
Smt. Gyan Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9234/2012 (Smt. Gyan Gupta versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 09.07.2012 Heard Shri D. Chandra Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of the M.P.Nagar Palika ( Registration of Colonizer, terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998. Admittedly the aforesaid matter is appealable before the appellate authority under the act and the rules. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Bhaiyalal Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
09.07.2012. Shri Rajesh Dubey for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents. Grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors respondent Nos.3 and 4, have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II from the post of Assistant Grade III. Petitioner is not promoted and no reason is indicated as to why he has not been promoted. Representation of the petitioner is also not considered and decided and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to his promotion in accordance to law by a speaking order within a period of two months 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 Aks/-...
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.290/97 09.07.2012. Shri S.C.Datt, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, learned Advocate for petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned PL for State. Heard. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner has fairly conceded that in this matter probation cannot be granted and he is also not assailing the merits of the case. His limited argument is that the incident is of 29.8.88 and petitioner was facing a protracted trial since then, not more than 23 years have passed, therefore, petitioner may be permitted to move the State Government under Section 433 of Cr.P.C.for commutation of the sentence considering the age of petitioner and in the light of decision of this Court in Tulsiram Mehta versus State of M.P.2009(2) MPHT 177 Learned senior counsel submitted that jail sentence imposed on petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. He submits that petitioner remained in jail for one day. His submission is that by maintaining the...
Rama Prasannadhar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.7220/2012(s) 09/07/2012 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working on the post of Investigator in the Education Department. Petitioner was suspended, thereafter, a departmental enquiry was ordered against him. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and has submitted a detailed report on 11.11.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority namely Joint Director, School Education/Respondent No.3. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report on 11.11.2011, action has No. been taken and, therefore, petitioner is before this court seeking a direction to the authority to finalize the case at an earlier date. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are directed to finalize the departmental proceedings on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer wit...
Surendra Kumar Bhandarkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.8692/2012 (Surendra Kumar & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 09.07.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities without conducting a proper proceeding or getting the matter adjudicated by the Arbitrator as required by clause 8 of the agreement dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) are proceeding to recover certain amount from the petitioners under Section 92 of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 It is however, apparent from a perusal of the record that the petitioners have not filed any applications before any of the authorities for stay or for referring the matter for arbitration or has an appeal been filed by them and they have directly approached this court by filing the present petition. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »