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.
Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Brijesh Kumar versus State W.P.No.12462/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 13.7.2012 by which petitioner has been transferred to Pindra Majhgawan in District Satna. Challenge to the order is made mainly on the ground that respondent No.4 is junior to the petitioner and if petitioner is required to work under respondent No.4 it would not be feasible. That apart, it is stated that some departmental enquiry is pending against respondent No.4 and he is not transferred but kept in the same School. Considering the fact that the only grievance of the petitioner is that he is posted to work under junior, the competent authority is directed to ensure that petitioner is posted in a place where no junior supervise his work or issues instructions on him. Necessary orders in this regard be passed and the competent authority shall ensure...
Salma Bano Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13811/2012 (Salma 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.83/12 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...
Ku.Saraswati Maravi(St) Now Smt.Saraswati Dhurve Vs. the State of Madh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Ku. Saraswati Maravi versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13682/2012 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 petiti...
Ram Kishore Yaduwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13054/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Shahid Ullah Baig, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ 261 .and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003 by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT 221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certa...
Amba Saheb Purohit Vs. Triveni Devi Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.10896/12. 29.8.2012. Shri R.K.Nanhoria, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.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 as well as IA No.9343/12, an application for grant of stay returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure, till next hearing of this petition the parties are directed to maintained the status-quo with respect of the structure and possession of disputed premises.C.C. as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge K....
Churamani Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13368/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/...
Prahlad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13903 / 2012 (Prahlad Patel......Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.29-08-2012 Shri R.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that on the complaint filed by the petitioner a FiRs.Information Report has already been lodged against certain accused persons and action is being taken in accordance with law against them. It is also apparent that while the petitioner has sought relief of taking action against certain individual persons, they have not been made respondents in the present petition. In the circumstances, as the police authorities have already registered a case against certain accused persons and the matter is under investigation, I do not find any reason to issue any dir...
Man Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Man Singh versus State & anr. W.P.No.12736/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Praveen Verma, 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 AnnexureP5 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 filed to declare the said Clause i.e. 9.5. as ill...
Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13249/12 28/08/12 Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and had been transferred from Gram Panchayat Jhiriya Koparihan to Gram Panchayat Chorkhadi in the same district of Satna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that earlier also when the petitioner was being transferred on the grounds of malafides, this Court interfered into the matter and disposed of the writ petition and not again the petitioner is being transferred. Having heard Shri Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer on advance notice, it is clear that earlier when the petitioner was posted to some other Gram Panchayat for a short period of 30 days, this order was interfered with by this Court and when the period of 30 days was over, the petition was disposed of, not contending tha...
Jaychand Sharma Vs. Nagar Palik Nigam Mudwara Katna
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13007/2012 (Jaichand versus Nagar Palika Nigam, Mudwara) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent to reimbuRs.Rs.95,290/- to the petitioner which was required to be paid by him towards stamp duty for registration of the house in his name allegedly on account of delay in registration being caused by the respondent. It is submitted that as the delay has occurred on account of the lapse on the part of the respondent, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reimbuRs.of loss and damages caused to him of Rs.95290/- which he was required to pay towards the stamp duty. Apparently, the petitioner has filed this petition claiming loss and damages and the issue as to whether the respondent is responsible for the same requires to be adjudicated by a competent court as it involves several disputed questions of fact and the appropriate remedy of the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »