Madhya Pradesh Court August 2012 Judgments
Shivji Suryavanshiu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 W.A.No.942/2012 Shivji Suryavanshi State of M.P.& others 31.8.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 1.8.2012 in W.P.No.11642/2012(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing his transfer order dated 12.7.2012, transferring the appellant from the post of Assistant Teacher at Girls Primary School, Bodkhi to Primary School, Haranya, Sankul Government Higher Secondary School, Bordehi, was dismissed. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition as no ground was made out for interference in the transfer order before the Single Bench. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant is a handicapped person and wife of the appellant is also posted at Bodkhi as teacher and as per transfer policy, both husband and wife ought to have been posted at one place. It was submitted that because of D.N.Harode and Dilip Hathiya, both teacheRs.the appellant has been harassed...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsa Bai Kumre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
M.C.C.No.138 of 2008. 31.8.2012. This application is filed seeking review of the order dt.14.12.2007 in W.A.No.1984/07 by which a Division Bench of this Court directed thus : Heard Mr.A.N.Giri,learned counsel for the appellant. Issue notice. Mr.Vivekanand Awasthy, Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Extra copies of the memo of appeal be served on him by Monday (17.12.2007).The matter be listed in the second week of January 2008. In the meanwhile the services of the appellant will not be terminated. From perusal of the record, we find that W.A.No.1984/2007 itself was decided finally by an order dt.29.1.2008. As the writ appeal itself has been decided finally, there is no reason to entertain this review petition against an interlocutory order. This review petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Tag this Judgment!Mudrika Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
...M.C.C.No.967 o31. 08.2012 Shri Rajesh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Dy. A.G.for the State. This application is filed for restoration of W.A.No.59 of 2010 which was dismissed in default on 5.5.2010. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of the petitioner, we find it appropriate to allow this application by condoning the delay in filing this restoration application. Accordingly, office is directed to restore W.A.59 of 2010 and to place it before the appropriate Bench for consideration. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj ...M.C.C.No.967 o31. 08.2012...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Kumar Mishra Vs. Govind Prasad Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 W.P.NO.13832/12. 31.8.2012. Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated dated 3.7.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by 16th Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Co.No.48-A/10, whereby in absence of his counsel the right of cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses has been closed with a prayer to extend the opportunity of cross-examination of such witnesses. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his argument, I have carefully gone through the record and the papers placed on the record as well as the impugned order. It is undisputed fact that at the time of calling the defendant and his counsel for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses no one was present to cross-examine them, then considering such circumstance such right has been closed without giving any further intimation to the petitioner. not a days it is no...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Writ Petition No.2214/2005 31.8.2012 Report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation wherein steps taken by it to demolish the Durga Temple, situated at Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, have been enumerated. It is also stated in the report that if on demarcation, which is being done by the Tahsildar, it is found that the temple is constructed on a Government land, the same shall be demolished forthwith. We are satisfied with the report. Needless to mention that the Municipal Corporation will take immediate steps to demolish the temple if it is found constructed on a Government land. It is stated by the learned Deputy Advocate General that a suitable reply has been filed to various interlocutory applications filed by the proposed interveners against the order of demolition of the Mazaar of Machine Wale Baba Sahib situated opposite to the Police Station Badi Omti, Jabalpur. Comprehensive reply has also been filed by the petitioner. Registry shall trace the replies and place t...
Tag this Judgment!Divisprik @ Binnu Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.13685 o31. 08.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take action against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the basis of his report, Annexure P-1 sent to Superintendent of Police, Umariya and some other Officers of the State through registered post. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through petition as well as papers placed on the record initially argued the matter for admission but in response of some query of the court based on Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner's counsel has restricted his arguments and made his limited prayer that the petitioner be extended a liberty to file elaborate representation in the office of authority of respondent No.2 with r...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Unique Construction Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.10852/2012 W.P.No.10854/2012 & W.P.No.10856/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer for respondents. This order shall decide W.P.No.10852/2012, W.P.No.10854/2012 & W.P.No.10856/2012, involving similar prayer, based on the similar set of facts. For the convenience, the facts are taken from W.P.No.10852/2012. The case of petitioner is that, before respondent No.1, petitioner's application Annexure P-1 for composition of the tax is pending, which has not been decided till date. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 be directed to consider and decide the application Annexure P-1, in accordance with law. The prayer made by petitioner is not opposed by Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, hence it is allowed. All the the petitions are finally disposed of with following directions:- (a) Petitioner may move an application to respondent No.1 for expeditious hearing of the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kiran Gupta Vishnoi Vs. Santosh Kumar Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P No.13416 o31. 08.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.10823/12, an application for grant stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October 2012 be issued to the respondent, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The case be listed according on such date so mentioned on the notice. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of the C.S.No.75-A/10, pending before the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Class-II Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Tag this Judgment!Natthu Shivankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.A.No.938/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.07.2012 passed in W.P.No.11131/2012, by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer order dated 12.07.2012, transferring the appellant from Government Middle School, Sarad, District Betul to Government Middle School, Ashta in Block Prabhat Pattan, District Betul, was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. The main contention of the appellant before this Court is that he has never applied for his transfer, but his transfer order has been passed on his request. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that altogether different ground was raised before the Single Bench that appellant and his wife both were working at Betul, and as per the policy of the State, the appellant could not have been transferred. While before th...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13356/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Manot Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. The contention of the petitioner is that he was granted Kramonnati pay scale. Thereafter an order of promotion was issued on account of which, not the salary of the petitioner is reduced and recovery is being ordered. It is contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Santosh Verma. Looking to the aforesaid, it is directed that till the next date of listing, no recovery from the petitioner will be made towards the alleged excess payment. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »