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.
Kamal Kishor Shrivastav Vs. Smt. Usha Adhikai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.9567/12. 29.8.2012. Shri J.P.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned GA for respondent No.1, on advance copy. Having heard on the question of admission it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission of this petition, IA No.8327/12 and for final disposal of this petition, returnable by fixing a date in the month of November, 2012 be issued to the respondent No.1, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Such notice has not been been directed to the respondent No.2 because such respondent has been impleaded as formal party before the trial Court. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of C.O.S. No.27-A/2008 pending in the Court of 1st Additional Judge, Raisen is hereby stayed.C.C. as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge K....
Om Prakash Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.9569/2008 29.08.2012 Shri Abhijeet Bhoumik, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance copy. It is contended that the claim made by the present petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.9117/2008 (s).which has been decided on 15.12.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are performing duties on the post in question, but the pay scale of the post is not granted to them. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P.and others versus Putti Lal 2006 (9) SCC 337.this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the respondents to look into the claim of the petitioners in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) and to grant the benefits to the petitioners in the said case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is ...
Bhupendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13437/2012 29.08.2012 Shri A.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.14625/2010 (s) [Muniraj Dwivedi versus State of M.P.and others.].This Court has disposed of the said writ petition in the following manner : It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed, yet while issuing the gradation list of all such persons, before the name of the petitioner, wrong date of appointment has been mentioned. Though a representation has been made but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, he has come before this Court. The basis on which the gradation list has been prepared by the respondent authorities is not clear. The covering memo itself prescribes that in case, there is an error in mentioning any facts in the gradation list, the pers...
Dr.Lallu Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13334/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Vikas 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 seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable within four weeks. Though it is contended that in identical matters interim stay has been granted by this Court and, therefore, the same benefit be extended to the petitioner, but it appears that the fact that the amendment with respect to the age of superannuation is not made applicable so far as the Medical Officer (Ayurved) is concerned, was not brought to the notice of this Court. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is granted any relief in the writ petition, he can be compensated in terms of money and, therefore, at this juncture, interim stay is not to be granted. Put up along with other analogous petitions for hearing immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj....
Anurag Modi Vs. Superintendent of Police Hoshangabad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.7011/2012 Anurag Modi versus Superintendent of Police & ORS.29.08.2012 Heard Shri Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging erection of illegal toll plaza for collection of toll by respondent no.3 at village Dharamkundi and Dularia in Hoshangabad District. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad and Collector, Hoshangabad regarding the same but no action thereon has been taken by the said authorities. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has not filed any complaint before the M.P.Road Development Corporation and that the petitioner has in fact sent complaints by post to the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad and Collector, Hoshangabad. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner...
M/S Hotel Shashi Rajmahal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Excise Depa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13366.12 Writ Petition No.13366 of 2012 (M/s Hotel Shashi Rajmahal and two others versus State of M.P.and six otheRs.29/08/2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard. Alleging a forceful prevention from participating in the proceeding of auction of foreign/country liquor shops relating to Station Chouraha Group, Damoh, petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of allotment of said shops in favour of respondent No.7 and the consequential agreement entered into with him in respect of the said shops. Notice for auction of shops in question was issued on 22-03-2012 stipulating that auction would be held in the premises of New Collectorate, Damoh, on 27-03- 2012 for the excise year 2012- 13. Vide said notice tenders were invited till 27-03- 2012 by 1.30 p.m.Case of the petitioners is that they wanted to bid DNHF-1, Station Chouraha Group, foreign liquor sh...
Ajay Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13444/2012 29.08.2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the ...
Rajendra Singh Tandon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
WP No.11580 o29. 08.2012 Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3, although represented as reflected by the proceeding dated 13.8.2012. Respondent No.4 appears to be unserved and subject to order of notice he is to be served. Shri R. Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. Counsel for respondent No.5 seeks for and is granted the period of 15 days to file the return in the matter. Let this matter be placed alongwith W.P.No.13023/2012 in the week commencing 17.9.2012. Till then interim order passed on dated 13.8.2012 is continued. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Sukhdeo Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13442/2012 29.08.2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para- 19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the...
Smt. Sumitra Ganjam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Pub ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Sumitra Ganjam versus State & ORS.R.P.No.643/2012 29/08/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for reconsideration of the order passed on 30th of July, 2012 in W.P.No.11663/2012(s) mainly on the ground that while considering the case of the applicant, challenging the order of transfer, one of the grounds raised transfer of the applicant being made on her own request, while no request is made by her. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is further directed that while considering and deciding the representation of the applicant as already ordered in W.P.No.11663/2012(s). non applicants shall take note of the grievance of the applicant with regard to the fact that no representation is submitted for request of transfer and as an error has occurred as contended by the applicant, this aspect shall be taken note of. Further taking note of the fact ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »