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.
Aarti Rai Parihar Vs. Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13628/2012 (Aarti Rai Parihar Vs.Board of Sec. Education & Ors.) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of respondents in not deciding the petitioner's representation claiming correction of the date of birth in the mark sheet of Class 10 th issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal after rejection of her fiRs.application on 19.09.2011. In the submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have not intimated the petitioner the reason for rejection of the petitioner's fiRs.application. It is submitted that in such circumstances, they be directed to decide the petitioner's representation filed against the rejection of her application for correction of the date of birth in the mark sheet dated 19.09.2011. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is d...
Smt. Shashi Namdeo Vs. Saraswati Shishu Mandir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
WP No.13021 o28. 08.2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay her Rs.3070/- per month of the category of unskilled labour in the light of the notification dated 30.4.2008, (Ann. P-3).Pursuant to it, the prayer of appropriate direction to give her the arrears/difference of wages w.e.f.1.1.2008 with the interest @ 18% p.a.as per aforesaid notification is also made. Besides this the prayer of cost on delayed payment is also prayed. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel whether the respondent is covered under the category of State defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, on which he submits that on earlier occasion also by entertaining the W.P.No.7466/2007 (S) with respect of the present dispute some order was passed,...
Manoj Kumar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028/1997 Manot Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Ranjan Banerjee, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.5.1997 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.337 of 1996 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine one years simple imprisonment in addition.2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 23....
Ramsakha Dwivedi Vs. M.G. Chaubay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Ramsakha Dwivedi & ors versus M.G.Chaubay. And anr. Con.C.No.143/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Brijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. In view of the fact that the applicants are Work Charge Employees and the question as to whether a Work Charge Employee is entitled to kramonnati, is still in dispute and the matter is pending adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court, it is not proper to initiate action for the present. As the question with regard to right of a Work Charge Employee's entitlement to claim kramonnati is pending consideration, it is No. appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt. It is for the applicant to get the right adjudicated and, thereafter, seek indulgence into the matter. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Saurav Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
28.08.2012. Shri Vivek Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is the candidate who has submitted an application for appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, but the computer qualification of the petitioner obtained in Graduation Level while doing B.Co.is not being considered and the representation of the petitioner in this regard is not taken note of. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, respondent No.3 the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Jabalpur is directed to consider the complaint and grievance of the petitioner, decide it and thereafter proceed in the matter of appointment in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Chhotelal Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Chhotelal Jharia versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13459 28. 8.2012: Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. P etitioner is a Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner has only 11 months for superannuation and, therefore, transfer is illegal. Petitioner is only transferred from one place to another in the same district and as there is no change in the District to which petitioner is transferred no case is made out for interference. On the aforesaid ground taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not thought it appropriate to interfere into the matter, instead liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent before the competent authority. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
ishwardeen Barman Vs. G.V. Rasmi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Ishwardeen Barman versus G.V.Rasmi & ORS.Con.C.No.1656/2011 28/08/2012 Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prasant Singh, learned counsel for the nonapplicants. Considering the fact that the claim of the applicant for grant of kramonnati was placed for consideration before the appropriate committee and the report and proceedings of the committee as is available in AnnexureR1, R2 and R3 goes to show that after evaluating the service record of the applicant, it is found that the applicant is not entitled for the said benefit and, therefore, no case is made out for grant of kramonnati. As the nonapplicants have considered and rejected the claim of the applicant, the applicant may No. challenge the same afresh on the ground that his claim has been considered improperly. In view of the above, nonapplicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application is di...
Alsia Pardhi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.10468/2012 (Alsia Pardhi and another versus C.B.I.) 28.08.2012 Heard Shri Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation to further investigate the matter under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.and to call for the record of the challan and the investigation made by the C.B.I.and to find out the role of politicians and officers in the incident. It is stated that the investigation has been carried out by the C.B.I.on the directions of this court issued in W.P.No 15189/2007, however, the investigation has not been carried out properly and requires further investigation. It is submitted that the matter relating to the petitioners is an exceptional case, therefore, in view of the decisions of the Supreme court rendered in the cases of Samaj Pariva...
Bhola Prasad Khurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
WP No.12969 o28. 08.2012 Shri R.B.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.M.Lal, learned Govt Adv for respondent Nos.1 and 3, on advance copy of notice. In the couRs.of arguments on admission on asking the petitioner's counsel whether he has filed entire copy of Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 alongwith this writ petition, on which he submits that he has filed only some extract of that policy. I deem to hear further this petition on admission after placing the entire copy of aforesaid policy on record, hence the petitioner's counsel is directed to place the same within seven days and this matter be placed alongwith such copy after a week. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Dwarika Prasad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Dwarika Prasad Ahirwar versus State & others W.P.No.13068/2012 28/08/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel with 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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »