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.
P.D. Meshram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
P.D.Meshram versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14030/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Surendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner is to retire in April, 2013, his transfer out of the district just a few months before his retirement, prima-facie, seems to be not proper. In view of the above, operation of the order dated 9.8.2012 transferring the petitioner is directed to be stayed and petitioner permitted to work at his present place of posting in Waraseoni District- Balaghat till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Dinendra Kumar Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
03.09.2012. Shri Ravindra Parashar for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State/respondent No.1. Shri K.S.Wadhwa for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Challenging the selection made for appointment on the post of ADPO and interalia contending that certain questions were incorrectly asked and challenging the validity of these questions and their answeRs.petitioner has filed this writ petition. From the averments made by the PSC in its return, it is seen that the question involved in this writ petition and the same controveRs.has been dealt with by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in more than five similar cases, decided by common order on 22.3.2012, in Writ Petition No.7434/2011 (Mayank Bharadwaj versus State of MP and another).Questions identical in nature with regard to the same selection process have been considered, and similar prayer made have been rejected. For the grounds and reasons already indicated by the Gwalior Bench in the order passed on 22.3.2012...
Subhash Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13540/2012 (Subhash Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri Rajmani Singroul, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.6 is not submitting the report in respect of several incidents of misappropriation of funds by respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the construction undertaken by them inspite of the fact that the respondent No.3, the Chief Executive Officer, is repeatedly directing him to do so. The petitioner has filed a letter dated 15.02.2012 issued by the Project Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jabalpur to the respondent No.6 asking him to submit a report to demonstrate the fact that inspite of the lapse of about seven months, the respondent No.6 is not submitting a report in order to protect the respondents No.7 and 8. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents/authorities to take action against the respondents No.7 and 8 expe...
In Reference Vs. Shri Bhagirath Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Con.Cr.No.3/2012 3.9.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for State. Contemner Bhaghirath Kushwaha alongwith Shri J.A.Shah, Advocate present. We have perused the record and the reply filed by the contemner and are not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the contemner. In view of aforesaid, the charge against the contemner is framed. The charge is read over to the contemner, who has denied the allegations. In view of aforesaid, we find it appropriate to direct an enquiry and accordingly the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh is directed to hold an enquiry and to submit his report within a period of three months. The contemner shall remain personally present before the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh on 8th October, 2012, for which date no notice shall be required. Office to send the relevant record of the Contempt Criminal case to the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh for recording of evidence in the matter. C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge M....
M.L. Umare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.L.Umare W.P.No.13274/2012 3/9/2012 : Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging his suspension ordered on 1.3.2012 petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though it is stated that petitioner is suspended by Incharge Joint Director without any authority but the fact remains that petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2012 and not due to superannuation of the petitioner and the contract of service between parties has already come to an end on superannuation, this petition is rendered infructuous. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the pending departmental proceedings, he may assail the same afresh in accordance with law. For the present in view of superannuation of the petitioner, this petition is rendered infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Dr. Smt. Bhushan Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13505/2012 03.09.2012 Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 29.08.2012, the amended provisions of the Rules have been place on record as Annexure P-11. The said document filed vide document No.8337/2012 is taken on record. Considering the amendment as made in the year 2007, it is clear that the age of superannuation of the Medical Officers of the Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Services of M.P.was extended from 60 years to 62 yeaRs.Reading the amendment provision, it is contended that the same has further been extended upto 65 yeaRs.It is further contended that dehors the said Rules, the petitioner is directed to retire on 30th September, 2012. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner be allo...
United India Insurances Company Limited Vs. Manoj Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.A.No.4884/2011 3.9.2012 Shri Ajit Agarwal, Counsel for appellant. Shri P.Soni, Counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.14917/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Office has pointed out delay of 21 days. Looking to the averments made in the application there appears to be no malafide, hence application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the copy of the petition as well as documents to the learned counsel for the respondent during the couRs.of the day. Also heard on I.A.No.14916/2011, an application for grant of stay. Counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal has been preferred against the award to the tune of Rs.2,87,400/- with 6% interest passed in Claim Case not MVC76/10 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Tikamgarh on 19.8.2011. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it...
Sushil Kumar Patel Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Vasif Ali versus State & ORS.Sushil Kumar Patel versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19771/2011 & W.P.No.881/2012 04/09/2012 Shri R.N.Shrivastava and Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners were candidates, who had appeared in the Recruitment Process conducted in the year 2011-12 for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and Subedar Police. Petitioners claim to be Ex-Army Personnel and submitted certain documents issued by the Army Institute namely Indian Army Certificate and contending that the certificate issued by the Indian Army should be treated equivalent to Graduation Certificate, this writ petition is filed. After taking note of the certificate issued to the petitioners in view of Rule 6 Sub-Rule 6(2)(2-a) of M.P.Ex-Serviceman (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and posts Class- III and Class-IV) Rules, 1985 and interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of Rule-6(2)(2-a).the ...
Bhagwandas Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14171/2012 03.09.2012 Shri P.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. The petitioner contends that an amendment has been made in the age of superannuation and the age of Class-IV employees has been extended from 60 to 62 yeaRs.yet he is being retired prematurely. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work in the department till the next date of listing or till he completes the age of 62 yeaRs.which ever is earlier. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
The State of M.P. Vs. Ghasita and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Criminal Appeal No.1838/2000 3.9.2012 Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ appellant. None for the respondents. Arrest warrant issued against the respondent No.1 Ghasita is returned unserved with a report that the respondent No.1 has expired on 26.9.2011. Under such circumstances, warrant cannot be served. Looking to the report given by the concerned SHO, appeal filed against the respondent No.1 Ghasita abates and consequently, it is hereby dismissed being abated. Name of the respondent No.1 Ghasita be deleted from the cause title of the memo of appeal. Now, the appeal is maintainable for the respondent No.2 only. Case be listed for final hearing in due course. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
- ‹ Prev
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- Next ›
- Last »