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.S.Pilley(Nageshwar) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Smt. S.Pilley versus State & ors.W.P.No.13170/2012 24/08/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as ANM in Sub Health Centre, Dogarmali District-Balaghat. By the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred to Sub Health Centre Songudda, Birsa, which is 90 km away from the present place of posting. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the In-charge Minister of the District has directed for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid, on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with note-sheets of the Minister as contained in Annexure-P4 dated 21.7.2012, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner after taking note of the directions issued by the Minister concerned and till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner be permitted to work at her present place of posting at Balaghat. With the aforesaid, petition stands dispose...
Kapil Lamaniya Vs. Keerat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.13188/2012 (Kapil Lamaniya versus Keerat Singh and otheRs.24.08.2012 Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the caveator on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the prescribed authority whereby the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Heerapur, Tahsil Gadarwara District Narsinghpur, has been removed from the said post under section 40 of the Act. The learned counsel entering appearance for the respondent No.1 on caveat submits that the impugned order is appealable and, therefore, the petitioner should approach the said authority. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner regarding violation of the procedures prescribed by law, denial of proper opportunity of hearing, all the aforesaid issues require decision on the basis of the facts which are disputed and ca...
Brij Bihari Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 Writ Petition No.8808/2012. 24.8.2012 Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Divykirti Bohre, learned PL for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to send his reference application/ case, kept in his office to the concerning reference Court. The copy of the reference application as well as proceedings drawn up by respondent No.2 on it vide dated 5.12.2011 and onwards up to 24.4.2012 are also annexed as Annexure P-2 and P-3 with this petition. Having heard the counsel in the available circumstances of the case instead to admit this petition for final hearing, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take immediate steps to send the aforesaid original reference application Annexure P-2 along with it's original proceedings Annexure P-3 to the conce...
Mukesh Kumar Nagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.12009/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. The controveRs.involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.8877/2006(s) decided on 10/08/2006. This Court has categorically considered the claim and has directed payment of wages for the period persons have remained in service. This view was further expressed by this Court in W.P.No.9479/2006, Ashok Kumar yogi versus The State of M.P & others decided on 23/08/2006. not the grievance of the petitioner is that despite bringing these orders into the notice of the authorities, though the petitioner is similarly placed person, he has not been granted the very same benefit. This being so, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the decisions rendered by 2 this Cou...
Smt. Shalini Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.1549/2012 (Smt. Shalini Dubey versus State of M.P.& ors.) 24.08.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority is not correcting the records by mutating the name of the petitioner on plot No.1901 of Scheme No.5, Phase-II, admeasuring 2950 sq.ft. inspite of the fact the said plot has been allotted to the petitioner and the name of several other similarly situated persons have been mutated. It is submitted that the petitioner's representations dated 10.01.2010, 8.12.2010 and 09/07/2011 (Annexure P-6).requesting the authorities to mutate her name is also pending before the respondent authorities, which have not been decided till date. The learned counsel for the respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority submits that the ...
Harishchandra Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Harish Chandra Kori versus State W.P.No.12373/2012 24/8/2012 : Shri M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is a retired Head Master and has filed this writ petition inter alia contending that his application for appointment on the post of Contract Teacher after retirement in accordance to the Circular Annexure P/2 dated 30.11.2009 is not being considered. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that due to scarcity of TeacheRs.State Government has issued a policy of appointing Teachers on contract basis. The payment shall be made after deducting the pension already being paid. System of appointment is indicated in the impugned Circular as appointment minus pension. Grievance of the petitioner is that his application has not been considered. It seems that pension received by the petitioner is much higher than the pay to be granted ...
Surendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.9688/20124. 08.2012 Shri K.N.Pethia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 6. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of Shri Surendra Bajpai and otheRs.who have moved an application to intervene in the writ petition to oppose the same on the ground that after passing of the final order in the present writ petition on earlier occasion, a writ appeal was filed by these interveners stating that they were not granted opportunity of hearing and said writ appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. The order passed by the single Bench was set aside and the matter was remanded back to be examined afresh. Looking to the aforesaid, the application for intervention is allowed. Let the interveners be impleaded as parties-respondents in the writ petition during the couRs.of the day by making an application for amendment in the cause title, which stood a...
Brijraj Singh @ Rajola Singh Vs. Santram Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
M.A.No.1179/2011. 24.08.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, Adv.for appellants. Heard on I.A.No.9408/12 an application for extension of time. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 2.5.2012 subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- within 45 days from that date this court granted stay but he could not deposit the aforesaid money within time and further seeks 15 days' time for deposit of the aforesaid amount from today. Looking to the averments in the application supported by an affidavit of Brijraj Singh @ Rajola Singh @ Sandeep Singh the aforesaid I.A is allowed. Time sought for is granted. Consequently stay dated 2.5.2012 shall continue subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- as aforesaid within 15 days from today. Office has shown that appellants have not complied the order dated 2.5.2012 regarding payment of PF. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that PF shall be paid on both the modes during the couRs.of the day. As prays for time is granted for payment of PF. List thereafter. C.C as p...
Rajesh Nayak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.5357/2012 (Rajesh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 24.08.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, 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 petitioner inspite of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Katni under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Katni to look into the complaint of the petitioner and to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate in accordance with law. The petitioner is also granted liberty to file a fresh representation, if so advised, bringing to the notice of the Respondent No.3, the decisions of this court laying down the law in this regard. To enable the respondent No.3 to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upo...
Basant Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.Ps.No.2447/2004 24.08.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. It is seen that a return has been filed by the respondents categorically contending that the claim of the petitioner was considered in the year 1993, but he was not found fit for such promotion and, therefore, was not promoted. Though a copy of the return is served on the petitioner's counsel on 31.5.2012, no rejoinder is filed. As none is present to prosecute the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the writ petition. The same is dismissed for want of prosecution. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »