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.Mangla Thaware Vs. the Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.11790/2009 (Smt. Mangla Thaware and others versus Secretary and otheRs.30.08.2012 Shri S. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner . Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents for training of the petitioners as Asha Dal Samnavayak and give them honorarium amount from the date of their joining. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the petitioners were never appointed as Asha Karyakarta. Though the respondents have acknowledged the fact that the petitioners were selected in the process for identifying such Asha Karyakarta. It is stated that subsequently the State Government by orders dated 19.09.2009 has abolished the system of identifying the Asha Karyakarta and have cancelled all previous circulars in this regard and in such circumstances the petitioners were never engaged as Asha Karyakarta question of sending them on training or paying honorarium does not arise....
Nanhu Lal Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Nanhu Lal Maravi & anr. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13186/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are working in the respondent's establishment. Petitioner No.1 is working since 1980 and Petitioner No.2 is working since 1981 and they claim regularization in service on the ground that they had worked for more than 12 years and they are entitled for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006). SCC Page 1 and the circulars issued by the State Government in this regard. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioners, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and the circulars issued by the State Government and decide the same within a period of three mo...
Ajay Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.160/1997 Ajay Kumar and 3 others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.1.1997 passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST. No.123/1992 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323 of I.P.C (for the victims Manot Saini, Shiv Kumar and Tulsiram) and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one year and Section 452 of I.P.C and sentenced for two yea...
Smt. Pratima Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.12613/2012 (Smt. Pratima Khare versus State of MP and otheRs.30.08.2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for the State. Shri R.A.Dubey, S.I., Police Station Dhooma District Seoni present in person. Corpus of the missing person Ms.Sweta Khare, daughter of the petitioner has been produced before this court. It is stated by the police authorities that appropriate proceedings have been initiated by them and the missing person has been traced out from Pune. Ms.Sweta Khare wishes to go with the petitioner. She is permitted to do. As nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition, the same is disposed of. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Dr. Subhash Pachpor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.14127/20130. 08.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.K.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher, was promoted on the post of Principal and is continuously holding the lien on the said post. According to the amendment made by the State Government in the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, the age of superannuation of the petitioner would be 62 years as he is covered by the said amended provision. Instead of permitting the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of 62 yeaRs.he is being superannuated at the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that in similar circumstances, this Court has entertained the writ petition and has granted the interim re...
Ramsushil Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Ramshushil Patel versus State W.P.No.11660/2012 30/8/2012: Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 on advance notice. Against the order passed by the Janpad Panchayat terminating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal and revision and therefore, petition directly before this Court is not permissible. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of by following directions :- On the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with appeal before the Collector, within a period of 10 days from today, the Collector shall decide the appeal after hearing all concern within a period of one month thereof. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Narayan Prasad Burman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Narayan Prasad Burman versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13732 30. 8.2012: Shri V.P.Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Incharge Jan Shikshak, Jan Shiksha Kendra Bamhani, Tehsil and District Dindori. It is stated that not without taking note of the fact that petitioner is Incharge Jan Shikshak he has been transferred from Primary School Kewlari to Primary School Tikariya, even though he is on deputation, petitioner is transferred taking note of the fact that he has completed three years posting at one place. Accordingly, contending that without taking note of fact that petitioner is on deputation he has been transferred from Primary School, challenge is made to the impugned action. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is thought appropriate to direct the competent authority of the department to consider the representation of petitioner and take a decision with regard to the error,...
Mh.Yusuf Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.08.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Keeping in view the order passed in Writ Petition No.13164/2012(S) [R.S.Rajput versus State of MP and others]., on 24.8.2012, and considering the fact that Shri R.S.Rajput is to join in place of the petitioner, the following directions are issued: On the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order before the competent authority on or before 7.9.2012, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and that of Shri R.S.Rajput in accordance to the directions issued on 24.8.2012, on or before 25.9.2012. Till decision on the representation and upto 25.9.2012, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Feran Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Cr.A No.26/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K. KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.26 OF 200.APPELLANT: Feran, S/o Lakhan Lodhi, aged about 28 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village-Chandena P.S. Madiado, District- Damoh (M.P) Versus RESPONDENT: State of M.P through police Station- Madiado, District- Damoh (M.P) ****************************************************************** For appellant : Shri Madan Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Smt. Nirmala Nayak, G.A along with Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer ****************************************************************** Date of hearing :30. 08/2012 Date of judgment: /09/2012 Per T.K. Kaushal.J:- This appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) against the judgment dated 13/10/2006 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.147/2003 convicting the appellant under secti...
Shailendra Sakwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Shailendra Sakwar versus State & anr. W.P.No.13807/2012 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 pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »