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.
Shobhnath Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.A.No.895/2012 31.8.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 6. Learned counsel for appellant at the outset submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal, with liberty to seek review of the order passed by the Single Bench on the ground that against an order passed by the trial Court under Order 33 Rule 5 of C.P.C., Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(n) of C.P.C., is provided and filing of writ petition was mis-conceived. Prayer is not opposed by Shri Pathak, hence it is allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge M....
Gulam MoinuddIn Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
W.P.No.1721/2011 31.08.2012 Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. An application has been filed today by the respondent seeking final disposal of the writ petition. It is stated that in terms of the seniority, the petitioner was entitled to grant of Senior pay scale with effect from 05.11.1985, which has been ordered and the consequential payment would be made shortly. In view of this, it is stated that the writ petition may be disposed of finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed such a submission made by learned Government Advocate on the ground that in terms of the information obtained by him under Right to Information Act, the petitioner was entitled to grant of the benefit of Senior Pay scale with effect from 01.01.1985 and this particular aspect has not been considered by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid disputed situation, the respondent is directed to file an e...
Chhatrapal Singh Vs. I.N.S. Daadi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.08.2012. Shri A.K.Mishra for the applicants. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants on advance notice. Taking note of the order passed by the non-applicants as contained in the document produced by Shri Vivek Agrawal, indicating consideration of applicants case and its rejection vide order-dated 9.8.2012, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. If the applicants are aggrieved by the manner in which their claim has been rejected, they should assail the subsequent order passed afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicants, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, this application is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Prathmik Vanopaj Sahkari Sansthan Maryadit Bhartipur, Distt. Raisen Vs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.13263 o30. 08.12 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondent No.2 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/defendants No.3 to 9 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 107.2012 (Annx.P/1) passed by the VIII ADJ.Bhopal in RCS No.324-A/08 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 rule 5 of the CPC, has been dismissed in part by framing one additional issue. Having heard the counsel on admission, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record including the plaint, written statement, existing and additional framed issues so also the aforesaid IA Annex.P/5. In the application Annx.P/5, the petitioners have proposed as many as 7 additional issues with a prayer to frame the same in the matter. On consideration, such a...
Seth Balkrishnadan Malpani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.9253 o30. 08.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Satish Dabra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, learned Govt. Adv for the respondents, on advance copy. Having heard the learned Sr.Counsel after perusing the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-28).alongwith the concerning provisions of the M.P.Accommodation (Requisition) Act 1948, the show cause against admission of this petition is directed against the respondents. State's counsel has taken such notices, hence no further notices are required to the respondents authorities. State's counsel seeks for and is granted the period of one month to file the return in the matter. Considering the prayer of the State's counsel the assisting counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply three sets of the petition alongwith the Annexures to learned Govt. Adv or to the A.G.Office within three working days enabling them to take appropriate instructions from the concerning authoriti...
Naresh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Naresh Kumar Chaurasia.versus State & anr. W.P.No.13801/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same district. Petitioner is working as a Patwari. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and on the ground that transfer policy has been violated. On such grounds, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Petitioner is granted liberty to take recourse to the departmental remedies available. As the representation submitted by the petitioner is already pending before the competent authority, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a reasonable time. Till then, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his...
Smt. Asha Chaturvedi Vs. M.Selvendram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Smt. Asha Chaturvedi vs.M.Selvendram Conc. No.374/2012 30/8/2012: Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that even though in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 14.7.2011 in W.P.No.9624/2011(s).petitioner has been reinstated as Panchayat Karmi vide order Annexure C/3 dated 22.12.2011 but the charge of Panchayat Secretary and the notification appointing the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary has not been issued in accordance to the directions issued by this Court on 14.7.2011 in W.P.No.9624/2011 (s).In the said order it is clearly stipulated that after appointment of proper person on the post of Panchayat Karmi respondent Collector, Singrauli will initiate action for notification of the said person as Secretary of Gram Panchayat and such notification shall be issued within one month. It is a case of the petitioner that even though petitioner has been appointed by the aforesaid...
Haresh Chandra Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 W.P.No.926/2010 Haresh Chandra Yadav versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.08.2012 Shri Atul Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the construction of road sought to be made by the respondent authorities on the land of the petitioner without acquiring the same or paying compensation for the same. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that they are not making any construction on the petitioner's land. The learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State further states, on the basis of annexure R-1, filed alongwith the return that the site of the road has been changed and the respondents are not going to construct any road on the petitioner's land. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition, which is accordingly disposed of in terms ther...
Ashok Kumar Suhane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WP No.13236 o30. 08.2012 Shri D.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, learned Govt. Adv for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. On payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission as well as for final disposal of the petition, returnable by fixing a date within one month be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let this matter be listed on the date so fixed on the aforesaid notice. Besides the aforesaid notices, a SPC for the date so fixed by the office on the aforesaid notices be sent to the office of Assistant Solicitor General of India, Jabalpur. Considering the prayer of the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner's counsel is directed to supply him one additional set of the petition with Annexures enabling him to file the return in the matter. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Meenu Yadav Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.8.2012 W.P.No.9966/2010 Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5. Shri B. Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents No.8, 12, 14 and 15. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioners has challenged the validity of the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly situated persons have filed revision before the State Government and the State Government by the order dated 27th January, 2012 allowed the revision which was preferred by the similarly situated persons. In view of subsequent development, during the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file revision before the State Gov...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »