Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Lochan Singh Thakur Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.399/20130. 08.2012 Shri Riyaz Mohammad, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. The notices issued to the newly added respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7 have not been received back served or unserved. The notice sent to respondent No.5 has been received back unserved with the note that the addressee has left the address on which the notice was sent. Await service report of notices issued to respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7. Meanwhile, learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay fresh process fee for issuance of notice by registered A.D.in seven days on correct address of respondent No.5 only. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Awadh Kishore Vs. Poona Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Writ Petition No.13393/12. 30.8.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-defendant no.1 has field this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7.7.2012 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Bina, District Sagar in C.O.S.No.14A/2009 allowing the application of the respondent no.1 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment (Annexure-P-5) in the plaint. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the petition and papers placed on the record argued that after closing the evidence of the respondent no.1-plaintiff contrary to some material admission in her deposition, she has filed the impugned application (Annexure-P-5).for amendment in the plaint to plead the terms and conditions of the alleged tenancy of the disputed premises. In continuation he said that, under the existing legal positi...
Savitri Vs. Aam Janta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Writ Petition No.8199/2012. 30.8.2012 Shri R. S Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission at length. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 9.4.2012 (Ann. P.14) passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class-II, Rewa in Civil Suit No.98-A/11 whereby allowing the application of the respondent No.1 and 2 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC they were permitted to prosecute the aforesaid suit as representative suit. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the papers placed on record. The respondent No.1 and 2 herein filed the impugned suit (Ann. P.11) against the petitioners and some other persons including the State of Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation Rewa for declaration an...
Hakam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Hakam Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13722/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Daily Wages Employee since 198687 and claims regularization in service on the ground that he had worked for more than 12 years and he is entitled for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006). SCC Page 1 and the circulars issued by the State Government in this regard. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and the circulars issued by the State Government and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. C...
Smt.Rameshwari Sharnagat Vs. the Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.11788/2009 (Smt. Rameshwari Sharnagat and others versus Secretary and otheRs.30.08.2012 Shri S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner . Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents for training of the petitioners as Asha Dal Samnavayak and give them honorarium amount from the date of their joining. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the petitioners were never appointed as Asha Karyakarta. Though the respondents have acknowledged the fact that the petitioners were selected in the process for identifying such Asha Karyakarta. It is stated that subsequently the State Government by orders dated 19.09.2009 has abolished the system of identifying the Asha Karyakarta and have cancelled all previous circulars in this regard and in such circumstances the petitioners were never engaged as Asha Karyakarta question of sending them on training or paying honorarium does not ...
Rajesh Shrivastava Vs. Municipal Corporation Sadar Manzil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.14732/2006 (s) 30.08.2012 Ms.Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms.Madhu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. After hearing learned senior counsel for the parties for some time it transpires that it would be necessary to examine the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner being M.P.No.2823/1993, which was decided in 2005 as also the record pertaining to the seniority list said to be prepared by respondents for consideration of the claims of persons like petitioner for regularization. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the parties may seek instructions and obtain the documents and file on record within a week. List immediately thereafter. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Yoti Singh Nayak Vs. Gram Panchayat, Bijaudi,anuppur and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Moti Singh Nayak versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7318 30. 8.2012: Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondent No.1, even though served and represented. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner was working as Secretary in the Water Shed Project of Gram Panchayat Bijaudi, PO Pasala, Tehsil Anuppur, District Shahdol. It is grievance of petitioner that vide resolution dated 13.12.2002 petitioner has been removed from the post of Secretary and respondent No.4 Shri Ghanshyam Yadav has been appointed as Secretary of Water Shed Committee. Interalia contending that in pursuance to resolution the Sub Divisional Officer has asked the petitioner to handover the charge vide Annexure P-2 on 13.12.2002, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of petitioner that his appointment on the post of Secretary, Water Shed Committee cannot be taken away in the manner done and as the principle of natural justice and opport...
Dr.Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 W.P.13605/2007(s) 30/08/2012 Shri H.S.Rajpoot, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Divyakirti Bohre, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Heard on I.A.No.11361/2012, an application for change of previous counsel. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the petitioner the same is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to change the counsel. The new counsel will file his Vakalatnama during the couRs.of the day. The same be taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. It is specifically pleaded by filing a rejoinder that A.C.Rs of the petitioner for the relevant period which were taken into consideration for promotion in the year 1993 were improperly written by an officer who was not authorized to do so. These facts have not only been pointed out by filing a rejoinder but some additional documents have been filed and on perusal of same it is clear that A.C.Rs 2 of the petitioner were written by the officer who was po...
Muneeb Ul Majid Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Muneeb Ul Majid Khan versus State & anr. W.P.No.13715/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Forest Guard and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, he has been transferred from Bandol Range South Seoni (Territorial) Forest Division to North Seoni (Territorial) Forest Division. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that provisions of Transfer Policy is violated as the transfer is not made after taking note of the recommendations made by the Incharge Minister, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P. & others ILR (2007) MP 1329, on the grounds raised judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is No. permissible. That apart, petitioner is shifted from one office to another in the ...
Ramsevak Dubey Vs. Chhannulal Chamar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.12597 o30. 08.2012 Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission as well as IA No.10225/12, an application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the appellate court's, returnable by fixing a date within one month be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The case be listed accordingly on such date so mentioned on the aforesaid notices. As an interim measure till next hearing, the parties are directed not to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the disputed property or any part of it unless the order of this Court. Besides the aforesaid the trial court is directed to proceed with the suit but shall not pass any final order or judgment unless the order of this Court. C...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »