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.
Smt. Rajanti Bai Mangulle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.4191/2012 Smt. Rajanti Bai Mangulle versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.08.2012 Heard Shri Abhishek Arzaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities proposing to recover certain amount of money from the petitioner who was working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Rampuri, Tehsil Harsud, District Khandwa. After arguing at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the competent authority against the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the aforesaid remedies available to him in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as ...
Smt. Usha Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 MCC 922/2012 29/08/2012 Shri D.K.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. This MCC has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition 2974/2012 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05/03/2012. It is contended that the name of learned counsel for the petitioner was missed in the cause list circulated by the Bar Association and therefore learned counsel was not present before the Court when the case was called for hearing. Such contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are supported by an affidavit. Considering the aforesaid, MCC is allowed. W.P.No.2974/2012 be restored to its original number and be li sted before the appropriate Bench for hearing. MCC stands allowed and disposed of finally. (K.K.TRIVEDI) Judge s/- 2 3...
Ms. Chandan JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13761/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, 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 six weeks. It is pointed out that in some what similar circumstances while entertaining the other writ petition, this Court has passed the interim ordeRs.Keeping in view the aforesaid and to put the petitioner at par with the otheRs.the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work till she attains the age of 65 yeaRs.The salary will be paid to the petitioner by the management of the institution and the State Government shall not be burdened with the payment of salary. List for analogous hearing with W.P.No.17373/2011(s) immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj....
Smt. Santosh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13447/2012 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...
Sushil Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Sushil Kumar Khare versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13317 / 2012 (s) 29.8.2012: Shri Umesh Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Tracer in the office of District Collector Panna and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from the office of Collector Panna to Raisen and in place of petitioner respondent No.5 has been posted. Interalia contending that respondent No.5 has been posted in place of petitioner at his own request after allowing his representation and, therefore, transfer order of the petitioner for accommodating respondent No.5 is illegal, petitioner has approached this Court. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned counsel for State points out that merely because representation of respondent No.5 is allowed and he is adjusted the transfer will not become illegal in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of MRS.Shilpi Bose & ORS.versus State of ...
Smt. Neeta Gupta Vs. Arvind Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.1065/12. 29.8.2012. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel as reflected from the cause list. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. The State counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required to the State. On payment of P.F.along with requisites of registered post within three working days notice of admission as well as for final disposal, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October, 2012 be issued to the respondent No.1, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Also heard on IA No.914/12, petitioner's application for grant of stay against further proceeding of Co.No.31-B/11, pending in the Court of 1st ADJ Balaghat. In view of admission of this petition, so also in other available circumstances, this IA is allowed a...
Koshalya Bai Vs. Durga Prasad Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Criminal Appeal No.1445/2012 29.8.2012 Shri T.K.Modh, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Thakur has submitted that there is no intimation as to whether an appeal was filed by the State against the judgment dated 29.5.2012 in ST No.38/2011. Under such circumstances, heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission of this appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.The trial Court has acquitted the respondents no.1 and 2 from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 451, 506-B read with Section 34 and Section 354 of I.P.C read with Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution's story in short is that on 24.3.2011 at about 9.00 p.m in the night the prosecutrix was cooking her food in her house which was taken on rent from the respondent Durga Prasad Mishra. Durga Prasad Mishra called the prosecutrix and thereafter, he entered into the house. He held the hands of the prosecutrix and tried to kiss...
Smt.Asha Chimaniya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Asha Chimaniya versus State W.P.No.13544/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Taking note of the fact that the Superintendent of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Hospital, Itarsi, has recommended for canceling the transfer of the petitioner, for the present without interfering the question of transfer on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law at an earlier date. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo with regard to working of the petitioner as is existing today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Shiv Naresh Majhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Shiv Naresh Majhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13480 / 2012 (s) 29.8.2012: Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Negura, Sankul Teothar. By the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 15.6.2012 petitioner has been transferred to another school. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that the transfer will disturb the student- teacher ratio it would violate the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Taking note of similar averments raised in W.P.No.12472/2012(s) this Court on 16.8.2012 disposed of the writ petition directing the State Government to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid this petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner expeditiously in accordance to l...
Devraj Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.13052/2012 29/08/2012 Shri Shahidullah Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is presently holding the post of Assistant Teacher (Science).It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government had created about 5000 posts of Upper Division Teacher in the faculty of Science and action was taken for filling up of these posts by promotion. Even though promotion exercise was conducted and when the same was cancelled, matter traveled to the State Administrative Tribunal in T.A.No.112/1993 and vide order dated 05/08/1999 the State Administrative Tribunal decided the matter. Subsequently a Division Bench of this Court has dismissed WPS No.1493/2006 on 12/01/2009. The SLP filed by the State Government before the Supreme Court has also been dismissed. Claiming the benefit of orders passed by this Court and the State Administrative Tribunal and contending that the District Education Officer, Ujjain has issued promotion orders in case of various persons as in the case of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »