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. Reeta Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Reeta Lal versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.8186 / 2012 (s) 29.8.2012: Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as A.N.M.in District Hospital Chhindwara, vide order dated 7.6.2011 petitioner was transferred to another hospital in the same district. It is stated that along with petitioner her husband was also transferred, but in the case of her husband the transfer order has been cancelled and in case of petitioner, even though the order was issued a year back on 7.6.2011 the same has not been impleaded and petitioner continued to work in District Hospital Chhindwara, but not she is proposed to be relieved. Keeping in view the aforesaid averments made by petitioner, respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner for cancellation of impugned transfer order and decide it in accordance to law by a speaking order within a reasonable time. While doing so, the transfe...
Kripal Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13431/2012 29.06.2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The only claim made by the petitioner is that his wife was entitled to grant of benefit of revision of pay in terms of the circular of the State Government in Finance Department, Bhopal, issued on 28.2.2009, but the said benefit is not extended to the deceased wife of the petitioner. It is contended that though a claim is made in this respect by making a representation, but nothing has been done, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Considering the specific instructions issued by the State Government, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction that the representation of the petitioner be considered in terms of the instructions dated 28.2.2009 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and a reasoned order be passed on the representation of ...
Shobhnath Pandey Vs. M.P.State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.8626/2009 29.08.2012 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents. Though the petition is listed only for consideration of I.A.No.10215/2011, an application for early hearing of the writ petition, but with the consent of the counsels, the matter is heard finally. The grievance of the petitioner is that an order of reversion was issued against him against which he was litigating and, ultimately, the said order was quashed by this Court by an order passed in Writ Petition No.1563/2000, which came up to be decided on 14.2.2006. The order passed by the Single Bench of this Court was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.335/2006. Consequently, the benefits were extended to the petitioner and the orders in that respect were passed by the respondents authorities. However, the claim of the petitioner for grant of second Kramonnati was not properly considered and by the impugned order dated 1.11.2007 (Annx.P/8).it...
Phool Chandra Chaudhari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13498/2012 29.08.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 a...
Rubab Bano Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13788/2012 (Rubab Bano 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.82/12 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, she is unable to respond properly to the said notice or defend herself 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 ther...
Ramanand Vs. Jaivant @ Jaimaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
WP No.1170 o29. 08.2012 None for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is dead. Shri R. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for respondent No.4. In view of listing the matter, IA No.5367/12, an application of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for early hearing does not require any further consideration, hence the same is disposed of. In the absence of petitioner's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place the same in the month of October 2012 for admission and consideration of IA No.1087/10, petitioner's application for issuing ad interim writ. However, in the available circumstances and also in the absence of the petitioner's counsel the interim order passed earlier is not being continued. Pursuant to it the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on merit. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately and the aforesaid counsel of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is also directed to place the certified copy of this order befo...
Mali Ram Goyal Vs. Tajinder Singh Saluja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
WP No.8665 o29. 08.2012 Shri Awinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.9392/12, respondent's application for taking annexed documents on record. Other side did not have any objection in taking such documents on record, hence on consideration by allowing the IA the annexed documents are taken on record. PetitioneRs.counsel seeks short adjournment to make the submission on admission and consideration of stay application. Let this matter be placed after 15 days or in any case in the week commencing 17.9.2012. The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Naresh Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 MCC No.844/2012 Naresh Pathak State of M.P.& another 29.8.2012 Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Counsel for respondents. I.A.No.9900/2012 for converting this MCC into a Review Petition For the reasons stated in the application and looking to the fact that petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 21.6.2012 in W.A.No.1184/2009, we allow the application and permit the petitioner to convert this MCC into a review petition. Accordingly, the office is directed to delete the present case from the register of MCC and register this case as a review petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. It is stated by the petitioner that in the order dated 21.6.2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.1184/2009 on 2nd page, this Court has stated facts in which earnest money has been shown as Rs.21,16,300/- while factually it is Rs.2,16,300/- and prays that aforesaid error may be corrected. From the perusal of the entire record, we fin...
Smt.Anjana Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Anjana Jhariaversus State W.P.No.12689/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an Auxiliary NuRs.Midwife and by the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 she has been transferred from one Public Health Centre to another in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that certain other persons who are working in the District have not been transferred and petitioner alone is transferred. The grounds raised by the petitioner are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order is permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to represent to the competent authority and directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation at an earlier date, this petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Ramnugrah Sharma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.4020/2003 29.08.2012 Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for four weeks' time to file return in the writ petition. It is seen that though the respondents were served and opportunity was earlier granted to file the return but no return whatsoever has been filed. The dispute is with respect to the recording of date of birth in the service book of petitioner. This being so, the respondent No.2, is directed to produce the original service book of the petitioner for perusal of this Court on the next date of listing. A copy of the order be made available to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to communicate the same to the concerning authority for compliance. List in the week commencing 29th October, 2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »