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.
Laxman Singh Ningwal Vs. Mdhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.6643/2012 (Laxman Singh versus M.P.Prof. Exam. Board) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities have changed the model answers notified by them previously for question paper set code 'A' conducted by the respondents for appointment and selection on the post of Agricultural Development Officer in accordance with the procedure contained in the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, Bhopal, Conduction of Examination, Rules and Directions.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation in respect of the aforesaid change in the model answer of question Nos.36 and 87, which is adversely effecting the petitioner, before the respondent authorities on 25.04.2012, but no decision thereon has been taken by the authority not has the petitioner been informed about the result of the decision the...
Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.8932/06(s) Ashok Kumar Jain .. .. Petitioner Vs./- High Court of Madhya Pradesh .. .. Respondent ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri P.R. Bhave, Senior Advocate with Shri B.P. Yadav, Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MEnot AND HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (28.08.2012) As per Alok Aradhe, J.- In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.3.2005 by which adverse remark has been communicated to the petitioner for the period ending 31 s t December, 2004 as well as the order dated 12.8.2005 by which representation submitted by the petitioner against the adverse confidential report has been rejected. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.2. The petitioner joined the judicial service on 19.11.1987 and was promo...
Vivek Khatri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13352 / 2012 (Vivek Khatri ..v...State of MP & otheRs.28-08-2012 Heard Shri H.R.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who had appeared in the B.Co.(Fourth Semester) examination, has filed this petition for revaluation of his answer sheet in the subject of business management. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed an application, Annexure P-4, before the respondent/authorities for revaluation of his answer sheet in the subject of business management but the same has not been considered and decided by the authorities till date. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid application seeking revaluation/proper valuation of the answer sheet expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably...
Ganesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. the Secretary/Add. Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 W.P.No.11269/2011 28/08/2012 Shri Rajesh K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J. Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents. Heard in part. It transpired that while making the scheme, training for grant of higher pay scale is made necessary, but there is no material available on record as to how the selection of persons for sending them for such training is made. In the rules, for promotion and direct recruitment, such a training and the qualification is necessary but whether the same yardstick can be made applicable for the purposes of grant of mere higher pay scale of the promotional post under the time bound advancement scheme, is not clarified by the respondents. Let a decision on the same be taken by the respondents-Board and intimated to this Court by next date of listing. List in the week commencing 8th October 2012. (K.K.TRIVEDI) Judge s/- 2 3...
Manish Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 W.P.No.9791/2012 Manish Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.08.2012 Heard Shri Surendra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In such matters the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154(3) of the CrPC and, thereafter, if aggrieved, to take up proceedings available to him under the CrPC, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to him in law, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( ...
Chandramani Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Chandramani Tripathi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13477 28. 8.2012: Shri K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and has been transferred from Rewa to Shahdol. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner mother is 82 years of age, she is a heart patient and if petitioner is transferred he will not be able to look after his mother. On the ground of personal inconveniences of petitioner judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. In view of above finding no case made out for interference, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take departmental remedy available. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Laxmikant Vijayvargiya Vs. Bharat Heavy Elelctrical Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.1166/2012 28.08.2012 Ms.Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri C.A.Thomas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Madhu Shukla, Advocate for respondents. I.A.No.11405/2012 an application for amendment in the Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the cause title of respondents as also adding two more respondents in the writ petition. It is stated that by an inadvertent mistake, the said respondents were not added in the petition when initially the writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court. It is contended that in case such an application is not allowed and such authorities are not impleaded as party, effective adjudication of the claim of the petitioner, would not be possible. Looking to the aforesaid, I.A.No.11405/2012 stands allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated in the writ petition within seven days. The amended paper book be filed. On payment of Process Fee withi...
Dr. Smt. Geeta Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Dr. Smt. Geeta Saxena versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13242 28. 8.2012: Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is working as a Professor and has been transferred from Bhopal to Betul. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on various grounds, but considering the fact that a representation filed by petitioner is pending consideration before the competent authority, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Himanshu Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.8464/2012 (Himanshu Tripathi and another versus State of MP and otheRs.28.08.2012 Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State. Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel submits that the record of the case has already been taken away by the petitioners and he has issued no objection certificate in this regard. None appears for the petitioner. It is stated in the return, filed by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued by this court that pursuant to receiving information about the death of the petitioneRs.father the Police immediately moved into action, got the post mortem conducted, sent the preserved visceras to the F.S.L., Sagar and has also initiated proceedings under section 174 of the Cr.P.C.which are pending. It is submitted that prima facie as per the opinion of the doctor the death of the petitioneRs.father appears to have been caused on account of drowning and the F.S.L.report received on 28.04.2012 also indicates that the death was not on account of any poisoning. From the ...
Raj Kishore Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13158/2012 (Raj Kishore Misha versus State of MP and otheRs.28.08.2012 Heard Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint made by the him. It is however, noted that as Crime No.41/12 has already been registered at Police Station, Amlai, District Shahdol and the matter is under investigation, in the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Shahdol for mitigation of his grievance by bringing to his notice any fact and circumstances which he feels, required to be seriously looked into by the the respondent No.3, the concerned authority shall look into the same and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the respondent No.3 to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwi...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »