Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Anil Kumar Pateriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.A.No.991/2012 Anil Kumar Pateriya State of M.P.& others 3.9.2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.8.2012 in W.P.No.11861/2012(S).by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer from Deori range to Noradehi range within the District Sagar was dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that within last five years the appellant has been transferred every year. We have perused the record and find that earlier also the appellant was posted within the same range in the circle Sagar and in the strict sense it cannot be said to be a transfer order. not vide order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 the Chief Conservator of Forest has posted the appellant from Deori to Noradehi within District Sagar. The learned Single Judge considered this aspect and found that the transfer order was passed in administrative exigency. No case was made out for m...
Deshraj Rai and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.4099/19903. 09.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1, 2 & 4. This is a writ petition of the year 1999. By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has pointed out that the grant- in-aid was being paid by the State Government to the Society-respondent No.5 for the purposes of payment of salary to the persons like the petitioneRs.Though in the return filed by the respondents-State such a fact is denied. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State will verify such document placed as Annexure A-12 along with the rejoinder. List immediately after two weeks enabling learned Panel Lawyer to seek instructions and file the additional return. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Smt. Madhu Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Smt. Madhu Sharma & ORS.Review Petition No.631 3. 9.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel with Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for non- applicant Nos.2 & 3. I.A.No.9777/2012 is filed for amendment in the cause title. Application is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within a week. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the Writ Petition No.4857/2011(s) on 11.4.2011, this Court directed the respondents (in the writ petition) to grant the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Court in various writ petitions. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in various similar writ petitions the case of employees were screened and thereafter benefit was granted, whereas in the present case non-applicant No.1 (Petitioner in W.P.No.4857/...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Kamlesh Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Kamlesh Jain & ORS.Review Petition No.630 3. 9.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel with Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for non- applicant Nos.2 & 3. I.A.No.9771/2012 is filed for amendment in the cause title. Application is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within a week. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the Writ Petition No.6103/2011(s) on 20.4.2011, this Court directed the respondents (in the writ petition) to grant the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Court in various writ petitions. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in various similar writ petitions the case of employees were screened and thereafter benefit was granted, whereas in the present case non-applicant No.1 (Petitioner in W.P.No.6103/2011)...
Mohd. Naseem Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.404 o03. 09/2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri J.L.Soni, learned counsel for the respondent. I.A.No.8212/2011 an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of maintenance pendente lite is take up for consideration with consent of learned counsel for the parties. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that the appellant is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and has also additional source of income from agriculture whereas the respondent is a plain housewife dependent on her parent living in village Rampur Baghelan, district Satna, It is contended that to contest the present case as well as to maintain herself she is not able to meet out the expenses. It is further contended that even a meager amount of Rs.500/- granted towards maintenance by the trial Court is not being regularly paid to the respondent. No reply to said application is filed. Taking the entire factual aspect into consideration we direct the appellant t...
Smt. Saroj Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13527/2012 (Smt. Saroj Saket versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents police authorities to register a case against the respondent No.5 in respect of the incident occurred in 2006. Apparently, no direction of that kind as sought for by the petitioner can be issued after a long lapse of six yeaRs.Moreso, as there is no cogent, reasonable and acceptable explanation regarding delay and laches on the part of the petitioner for approaching before this court, I find no reason to issue any direction as prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter, if so advised, before the competent authorities. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Jud...
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Madan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.491 o03. 09/2012 Shri S. Sunder, learned counsel for the appellant. I.A.No.8565/2012 an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby the appellant seeks interchange of application, I.A.No.6011/2012 filed along with the Court fees in FiRs.Appeal No.492/2012 in the present case. It is urged that inadvertently the court fees meant for the present appeal has been filed in FiRs.Appeal No.492/2012. Having considered the bonafide mistake committed by the appellant we grant leave to rectify the same. Office is directed to place on record of this FiRs.Appeal I.A.No.6011/2012 along with the court fees filed in FiRs.Appeal No.492/2012 and the same be treated as court fees in present appeal. I.A.8565/2012 is accordingly disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE sc...
Rajkumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.C.C.No.298/2012 03.09.2012 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this petition for restoration of M.P.No.1765/1993, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.10.2005. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have entered appearance and vehemently opposed the application. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petition was taken up on several occasions and was dismissed by this court on 27.10.2005 as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute or argue the matter inspite of the fact that the petition was of the year 1992 and was pending for a long period of 13 yeaRs.It is apparent that after dismissal of the petition on 27.10.2005, the petitioner did not take any step to get the petition restored for a long period of 7 years and has not approached this court in the year 2012 for restoration of the pe...
Jp.Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.4719/2011 03.09.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4. Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. As directed orally, the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, is present in Court. It is informed that the queries raised or the objection pointed out to the respondents No.2 and 3 have been replied only on 1.9.2012 and the communication in this respect has been sent. not the action would be taken for approving the pay fixation of the petitioner as is sought by the respondents No.2 and 3. Let it be done within a week and the return to this effect be filed by the respondent No.4. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed for the said purposes. List immediately after a week in the week commencing 17.9.2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Smt.Ram Dulari Dhiman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14164/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner should be given benefits of advance increments in terms of provisions of Fundamental Rules 22-D in the light that she was promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of Upper Division Teacher. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that State Administrative Tribunal has granted the said benefits in bunch of Original Applications filed before it and the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.1104 of 2001 (State of M.P.versus Dayaram Patidar) decided on 04.10.2002 and also in other similar type of cases has also affirmed the said order. The respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of two advance increments in terms of 22-D in the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench in 2002 in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra).In view of the aforesaid submis...
- ‹ Prev
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- Next ›
- Last »