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.
Ku. Gayatri Mittal Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WP No.11530 of 2012. 31.8.2012. Petitioner present in person. Shri Subhash Shrivastava for the respondent No.1. Petitioner submitted that today is the last date for depositing of the fees for the examination and the respondent be directed to accept the fees. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the record as directed on the last date of haring is available. But, no time is left, we adjourn hearing of this petition for 3.9.2012. In the meantime, the respondent shall accept the fees if deposited by the petitioner subject to further orders on the next ate of hearing. C.C.today. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Alok Tiwari Vs. Smt. Rukhmani Bai Dube
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P No.13478 o31. 08.2012 Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.10880/12, an application for grant stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October 2012 be issued to the respondent No.1 - plaintiff only, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. The aforesaid notice is not directed against respondent No.2 because he was co-defendant with the petitioner in the trial court. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of the C.S.No.9-A/12 pending before the IInd Additional Civil Judge to the Court of Ist Civl Judge-II, Jabalpur is hereby stayed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Naseem Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13847/20131. 08.2012 Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued by the competent authority for recovery of the claims of the petitioner from the respondent No.3 and the said revenue recovery proceedings are pending consideration before the Collector, Bhopal for a long period. Though there is no stay or any other restraint to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate but a period of four years has lapsed and still the recovery has not been made. The representation to this effect was made but as nothing was done by the respondent No.2, the writ petition is required to be filed. This Court has observed in many of the cases that in case Revenue Recovery Certificate is issued by the competent Labour Court or other authorities, it is the responsibility of the recovering authority to make the recovery of the a...
Smt. Reva Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13630/20131. 08.2012 Shri Mahendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by w...
Narmada Prasad Sharma Vs. Kamta Prasad Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P No.13420 o31. 08.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagad, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Keeping in view that the trial court has permitted the respondents to prosecute the impugned suit at the place of deceased -principle plaintiff as his legal representative on the basis of testamentary document, Will, which was not duly proved before considering the same for passing the order as per requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.10825/12, stay application, returnable within one month is directed against the respondents. Necessary steps alongwith requisites of registered post be taken within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition further proceeding of C.S.No.91-A/2007, pending in the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad is hereby sta...
Narmada Prasad Choudhary Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.10715/20131. 08.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no reason assigned in the order dated 24.03.2012 by which the request of the petitioner to transfer him to Jabalpur has been rejected. It is contended that there are policies made by the respondents with respect to such request transfer and it would have been proper for the respondents to mention such reasons so that the same could be challenged in appropriate manner, if a favourable order was not passed by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner is suffering from such ailment which requires immediate attention of the respondents for making appropriate posting of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the writ petition but keeping in view the fact that the reasoned order has not been passed by the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respo...
Ashok Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.14846/2007 31.08.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 5. Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7. The claim is made for payment of salary by the petitioneRs.The respondents No.6 and 7 have filed the return stating that they are the School receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, but the grant was not received for the period from which the claim is made in the petition and, therefore, they could not disbuRs.the salary to the petitioneRs.However, it is stated that the payment of salary has been made to the petitioners from the period the grant was paid by the State Government. In view of these submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7, let a response be filed by respondents No.1 to 5 within four weeks from today, indicating as to how and why the grant was not paid by them for the period in dispute to respondents No.6 and 7, so that the amount...
Smt. Vandana Berman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1 W.A.No.950/2012 Smt.Vandana Berman State of M.P.& others 31.8.2012 Shri K.N.Pethia, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for respondents/State. Shri C.L.Sethi, Counsel for respondent No.4. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.12501/2011 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Appeal No.95/B-121/10-11 dated 20.6.2011 was dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the respondent No.4 had filed a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of her bonafide resident of the village while the Sarpanch was not entitled to issue such certificate and only either the S.D.M or the Tahsildar was competent to issue such certificate, but their certificate was not filed. So she was not entitled for her appointment as Aaganwadi Worker. We have perused the order passed by the Single Bench. The learned Single ...
Ram Nath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.10057/2011 31.08.2012 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. It is seen from the documents filed along with the writ petition that the relevant information about the vacancies available was given to the Principal Secretary of the department by the Engineer-in-Chief of the department. However, while filing the return, this particular aspect is neither explained not any effective reply has been given to this effect. On the other hand, a bald statement is made that there was no vacancy on the post against which the petitioner was claiming adjustment. This being so, let an affidavit of the competent authority be filed by the respondents within two weeks explaining such conduct of the Officer Incharge. List immediately after two weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
M.B.L.Saxena Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.21182/2003 31.08.2012 Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the service book has been filed in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, duly reiterated by this Court. Such documents are not available on record as the same were filed in the MCC. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file such documents on record of this writ petition. It is stated by learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 that the return is required to be filed. It is seen that the notices were issued by the Tribunal which were duly served on the respondents, but the return has not been filed. However, in the interest of justice, four weeks' time is allowed as a last opportunity to file the return in this case. In case the return is not filed by the aforesaid time, personal appearance of Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health and Engineering Department...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »