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.
Rajni Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
28.08.2012. Shri Alok Pathak for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as ANM in Primary Health Center, Sikandara, Block Wara Seoni, District Balaghat. She has been transferred vide order-dated 13.7.2012 to Public Health Center, Kakodi, Tehsil Kirnapur in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. The personal inconveniences of the petitioner are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the State Government and on such consideration judicial review of an order of transfer is not permissible. That apart, it is stated that petitioner has submitted representation, which is yet to be decided. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representation, the competent authority shall d...
Bhagchand Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(1) Cr.A.No.78/2004 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K.Kaushal CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78/2004 Bhagchand son of Baijnath Kahar, aged about 25 years, Resident of Hanuman Ward, Kareli, P.S.Kareli, District Narsinghpur. ...Appellant -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) ...Respondent ------------------------------------------------ For the appellant:Shri V.P.Singh, Advocate. For the State: Shri Amit Pandey,Panel Lawyer. ------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing :23. 08/2012 Date of Judgment:28. 08/2012 JUDGMENT Per : Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 19th December, 2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.32/2003 convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-...
K.N. Shukla Vs. R. Parshuram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
28.08.2012. Shri S.P.Sharma for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants, on advance copy. This application has been filed for initiating action for contempt on the ground that the order passed by a Bench of this Court on 13.12.2011, in Writ Petition No.8789/2006 has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the State, who is appearing on advance notice, has pointed out that the order passed on 13.12.2011 was an ex-parte order and on application filed by the State Government the said order has been reviewed/modified and he produces before me a copy of the order passed in Review Petition No.101/2012, on 20.4.2012, which shows that the order passed on 13.12.2011 in Writ Petition No.8789/2006 has been recalled and the said writ petition has been restored to its original file. In view of the above, not no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Rekha Ambulker Vs. Shri S. B. Chopde
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 Con.C.No.149/12 28/08/12 Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 18/12/08 in W.P.No.5027/07 (s) has not been complied with, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It was the case of the petitioner that petitioner's claim for regularization has not been considered and the directions issued by this Court has not been complied with. On 18/12/08 in W.P.No.5027/07 (s).this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization and take a decision. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution and forwarded the same to the State Govt. for consideration and, thereafter, when the matter again came before this Court on 30th September, 2011 in Con.C.No.761/09, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the State Govt. to take a final decision for the claim forwarded for consideration. Now, the Sta...
Smt. Santoshi Bai Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.7557/2012 ((Smt. Santoshi Bai Singh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.01.2012, passed by the Collector, Anuppur, whereby in view of certain complaints against the petitioner and the fact that he was not performing his duties in accordance with the rules by not attending the meetings, the Collector by the aforesaid order has directed the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paror, Janpad Panchayat Anuppur to perform the duties of Sarpanch. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, even though he was an elected member, which is not permissible under Section 86(2) of the Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is apparent that the impugned order dated...
Ramdayal Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Ramdayal Parihar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13067 / 2012 (s) 28.8.2012: Shri C.L.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is a Patwari and is transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same district. Challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground that petitioner is to retire on 31.7.2013 and, therefore, transferring petitioner at the fag end of his career is not permissible. The transfer policy only prohibits transfer of an employee from one district to another at the fag end of career. In the present case, petitioner is not transferred away from the district, he is only transferred from one patwari halka to another in the same district where he is working, the said provision is not attracted in the case of petitioner. The other grounds raised are the personal inconveniences of petitioner and on such ground judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is ...
Het Ram Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.6489/2012 ((Hetram singh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2012, passed by the Collector, Anuppur, whereby in view of certain complaints against the petitioner and the fact that he was not performing his duties in accordance with the rules by not attending the meetings, the Collector by the aforesaid order has directed the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jamunia, Janpad Panchayat Anuppur to perform the duties of Sarpanch. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, even though he was an elected member, which is not permissible under Section 86(2) of the Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is apparent that the impugned order dated 20.04.20...
Triveni Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Triveni Prasad Tripathi versus State & anr. W.P.No.12735/2012 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....
Kafeel Khan Vs. Nagar Palik Nigam Mudwara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.9036/2012 (Kafil Khan and others versus Nagar Palika and otheRs.28.08.2012 Shri Rajeev Barkur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner on seeking instructions in view of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner has already been decided, prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file an appeal along with an application for interim relief against the impugned order, if so advised. Prayer allowed. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
28.08.2012. Shri P. Choubey and Shri Tapan Bathre for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Forest Range Officer in Forest Department, Rehatgaon, Harda and by the impugned order dated 9.8.2012, has been transferred to Bhopal. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner came to Rehatgaon only two months back and the transfer amounts to frequent transfer. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, points out that posting of the petitioner at Rehatgaon was a local adjustment made by transferring the petitioner within the area by the Local Officer, but not petitioner, who has completed his tenure posting in District Hardha, is being transferred from Harda to Bhopal and, therefore, in the absence of any statutory rule or regulation being shown to be violated, it is stated that interference into the matter is not called for. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and o...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »