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.
Premwati Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.13657/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Balwant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. The only claim made by the petitioner is that her husband late Shri Balwant Patel was in the employment of respondent and has died while in service on 23.08.2011. The claim was made for fixation of the service dues of the husband of the petitioner and for payment of the death cum retirement gratuity and other service benefits as applicable to such a deceased employee. Even after making of the application, when nothing was done, a legal notice was issued to the respondent, but till today nothing has been done by him. Considering the aforesaid and keeping in view the provisions of M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the specific period prescribed for fixation of such dues, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look into the representation of the petitioner and to decid...
Mahesh Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
31.8.2012 R.P.No.666/2012 Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 9.8.2012 passed in W.P.No.12037/2012 (s).By the aforesaid order the writ petition had been disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation along with an application for stay to the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously within a period of six weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been permitted to continue at the present place of posting till the decision of his representation. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. See: S.Bagirathi Ammal versus Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464. Learned ...
Rakesh Raikwar Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.11043/2011 31.08.2012 Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. In response to the writ petition, a return has been filed stating that the posts of Workman Grade-I have not been sanctioned and by reallocation of the post as has been ordered, such number of sanctioned posts as is alleged by the petitioner, are not available at Jabalpur. However, the fact is required to be examined as it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the work of Workman Grade-I is being taken from the petitioner by the respondents. If there is no sanctioned post available, how such work could be taken from the petitioner. These facts are required to be explained. Let an affidavit in this respect be filed within two weeks by the respondents. List thereafter for consideration. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Prashant Bansod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
REVIEW PETITION No.584/20131. 08.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.6791/2010. It is contended that the issue was already covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.841/2010 (S) decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court but that decision was not brought to the notice of this Court and because of that reason, the order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.6791/2010 on 22.06.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The order passed by the coordinate Bench is placed on record. After examining the order in W.P.No.841/2010(S).decided on 21.01.2011, it is clear that dispute was squarely covered and it was held by this Court that the insistence of the registration in the employment exchange on the date of application was not necessary. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.06.2012 ...
Omprakash Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13857/20131. 08.2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that there were recommendations for implementation of the Pay Revision Rules and such a matter is pending consideration before the respondents No.2 and 3 but no decision whatsoever has been taken on the same. In view of the aforesaid, instead of keeping the writ petition pending before this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the implementation of the revision of pay as prescribed by the State Government keeping in mind the financial status of the Cooperative Society of the respondent No.2. The decision on the same be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Supersonic Education Society Vs. National Council for Technical Educat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.14026/2012 31.08.2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. A.G.for respondent No.4. The petitioner has sought following relief: "7.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 05.06.2012 issued by respondent no.2 and further direct the respondents to process and decide the application for grant of recognition to run Diploma in Elementary Education couRs.made by the petitioner. 7.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted."The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 has wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for recognition on wrong premises, while as per order Annexure P-6 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9988/2012 dated 17.07.2012 in the case of Captain Ramesh Chandra Nema Shiksha Prachar Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti versus National Council for...
Sagar Vs. Manohar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 Writ Petition No.13574/2012. 31.8.2012 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners-defendants/ judgment debtors have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.7.2012 (Ann. P.3) passed by the District Judge, Khandwa in M.R.No.5/12, dismissing his application filed under Section 151 of CPC for extension of time to pay the sum of the decree passed against them by such Court in Civil Original Suit No.13-A/11 vide dated 9.2.2012. In the couRs.of the argument on admission on referring the provision of Order 20 Rule 11 of CPC by the petitioners counsel on asking him whether any application under the aforesaid provision according to its spirit has been filed by the petitioner in the trial Court, on which he fairly submits that no application was filed in accordance with such provision and also with the prayer, as per requirement of Order 20 Rule 11 of CPC. Again on ask...
Pratap Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2149 OF 199.Pratap Singh. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J.A.Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of August, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8/11/1996 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.32/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction U/S Sentence Fine Default (IPC) (Rupees) sentenc1. year's RI 200/- RI for 1 mont5. years' RI 1000/- RI for 6 month10. years' RI 2000/- RI for 9 months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the pros...
Hemant Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Writ Petition No.10370/11. 31.8.2012 Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 3 to 7. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State-respondent. Perused the PUD. The same is a memo dated 21.7.2012, received from the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge Class-1, Churhat District Sidhi, seeking extension of further 8 months in continuation of order dated 24.1.2012 passed in this petition i.e.W.P.No.10370/11, to conclude the trial. It is noted that 8 months time was fixed to conclude the trial by the aforesaid order dated 24.1.2012. Although, the memo has not been sent by stating of the requisite information and the circumstances in which the trial Court could not conclude the trial in compliance of prescribed period by this Court, but looking to the nature of the litigation by adopting a lenient view, the time is extended to the trial Court to conclude the trial of Civil Original Suit No.47A/08, upto end of Februar...
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 W.P.No.14765/2007 Narmada Bachao Andolan State of M.P.& others 31.8.2012 Ms.Medha Patkar, for the petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar with Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Counsel for State of M.P.Shri Pawar, learned counsel appearing for State of M.P.has shown us a notification dated 28.8.2012 issued by the Government of M.P., extending period of Jha Commission for a period of 5 years from the date of its initial constitution. It is submitted by Shri Pawar that not the period of Jha Commission shall be upto October, 2013. From the perusal of the record, we find that Jha Commission was constituted in the year 2008 which is at the stage of completion of 4 yeaRs.During this period, Jha Commission must have performed lot of work, but it is necessary that some feedback in this regard should come on record. Accordingly, we direct the Secretary of the Jha Commission to submit its interim report showing in brief the work assigned to it, work till date completed by Jha Commission and the volume of work which is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »