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.
Haridwar Kir (S.T.) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Haridwar Kir versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13688/2012 29/08/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and challenge in this writ petition is made mainly on the ground that the policy of the State Government as contained in Clause9.5 of the circular AnnexureP2 dated 1st of May, 2012, wherein it is indicated that a Patwari or a Revenue Inspector shall not be posted in his home Tehsil. Challenge to this policy is made mainly on the ground that in Section 104 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Terms and Conditions governing appointment to the post of Patwari, there is no prohibition for his working in the home Tehsil and as the statutory provision is violated by incorporating such condition, this writ petition is ...
M.P. Mjotor Emplolyees Union (intk) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.13791/2012 M.P.Motor Employees Union versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.08.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Corporation to consider and decide the applications filed by the petitioner- Union for allotment of a shop at the bus stand. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the application for allotment of the shop is pending before the authorities, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to look into the applications filed by the petitioner-Union and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the Municipal Corporation (Transfer of I...
Murari Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Cr. Appeal No.3021/11 29.8.2012 Shri K.K.Goutam, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.16771/12, a repeat application on behalf of appellant for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 30.1.2012, by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after six months and this I.A.is preferred under such liberty. Appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of I.P.C.for R.I.5 years with fine of Rs.2000/-. He suffered the judicial custody from the date of his arrest i.e.15.2.2011 till 16.12.2011 i.e.the date of the impugned judgment and since then he is facing the awarded jail sentence. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments after going through the record so also taking into consideration the aforesaid earlier order in which the liberty to revive the prayer was extended to the appellant in the available ci...
Rajendra Kumar JaIn Potdar Vs. Virendra Kumar Dixit, Advocate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
WP No.12880 o29. 08.2012 Shri R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent No.2, on advance copy. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ to quash the order dated 26.5.2012 (Ann. P-4).passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar in Appeal No.89/B-105 year 2000-2001 whereby allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 the case has been remitted back to the Collector of Stamp, Tikamgarh with some direction to decide afresh. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioneRs.counsel whether alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order, Annexure P-4 before the Board of Revenue is available to the petitioneRs.on which he fairly submits that such remedy is available to the petitioners but in view of earlier order of this Court dated 29.3.2012 passed in W.P.No.1309/2004 setting aside the earlier order of the Board of Revenue he has directly come to this Cou...
Abdul Kadir Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13876 / 2012 (Abdul Kadir..Vs...State of M.P.& another) 29-08-2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Field Assistant, in the Veterinary Department, has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to send the petitioner for training of Veterinary Field Assistant in view of the circular issued by the State Government dated 12-4-1978 and the request made by the petitioner in this behalf on 15-5-1998 which has been forwarded by the authorities on 13-7-1998. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the petitioner has approached this Court after about 15 years praying for taking action on the representation and recommendations made in the year 1998 and there is no explanation for the delay and laches on his part in approaching this Court. That apart, the petitioner him...
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
...W.P.No.3559 o29. 08.2012 Shri Priyanshu Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy. A.G.for the respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already appeared in the second professional examination couRs.in view of the order dated 15.3.2012 passed by this Court but not the respondents are neither declaring the result not permitting the petitioner to attend her classes for 3rd professional examination course. It is submitted that respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to attend the classes of 3rd professional examination course. Shri Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for 15 days time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing immediately after filing of the reply. During this period, respondents shall permit the petitioner to attend the classes of 3rd professional examination course, which shall be subject to further orders in this matter. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla ...
Dashrath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Dashrath Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13603 29. 8.2012: Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Jharoli under Janpad Panchayat Tendukheda, District Damoh. Petitioner has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Kathora, Janpad Panchayat Batiyaghad in the same District of Damoh. Challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground that brother of petitioner is suffering from serious kidney ailment, he is undergone treatment at Jabalpur and Nagpur and, therefore, if petitioner is transferred, treatment of petitioner's brother would be adversely effected. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that on the personal inconveniences of petitioner judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, the petition i...
Murtaza Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13821/2012 (Murtaza versus C.E.O., MP State Wakf Board 29.08.2012 Heard Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Wakf Board Bhopal in case No.78/12 on the ground that the said notice is absolutely vague as it does not mention the particulars of the property said to have been encroached upon by the petitioner not does it give details of the name of the Wakf to which the property is alleged to belong. It is submitted that the petitioner has several properties in Harda and therefore, he is unable to respond properly to the said notice or defend himself and therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has brought all these lacunas to the notice of the authority issuing the show cause notice by filing a reply on 03.05.2012 but no details thereaft...
Omkar Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Omkar Prasad Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13562 29. 8.2012: Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioners are working as daily wages employee in Water Resourses Department and claims regularization in service on the ground that they have completed more than 20 years of service. They are working regularly since 1986 and are entitled to regularization in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC, 1, and the policies formulated by the State Government on 16/05/2007 and further on 06/09/08, claiming regularization, petitioners filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioners for regularization in accordance to policies and circulars of the State Government and pass appropriate orders...
Adnan Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13799/2012 (Adnan versus C.E.O., MP State Wakf Board 29.08.2012 Heard Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Wakf Board Bhopal in case No.77/12 on the ground that the said notice is absolutely vague as it does not mention the particulars of the property said to have been encroached upon by the petitioner not does it give details of the name of the Wakf to which the property is alleged to belong. It is submitted that the petitioner has several properties in Harda and therefore, he is unable to respond properly to the said notice or defend himself and therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has brought all these lacunas to the notice of the authority issuing the show cause notice by filing a reply on 03.05.2012 but no details thereafter...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »