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.
Deepa Kasera Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1 W.A.No.983/2012 W.A.No.984/2012 3.9.2012 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Counsel for appellants. This order shall decide W.A.No.983/2012-Deepa Kasera versus State of M.P.& others and W.A.No.984/2012- Shobha Raghuvanshi versus State of M.P.& others involving similar controveRs.based on similar set of facts. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.A.No.983/2012. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.7.2012 in Writ Petition No.8546/2012 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against show cause notice dated 30.5.2012 directing the appellant to show cause as to why her services be not terminated and appointment be not cancelled, was dismissed. This appeal has been filed assailing the aforesaid show-cause notice. Today, we have considered the similar controveRs.in W.A.No.881/2012- Ku.Kshama Bhagat versus State of M.P.& others and have disposed of aforesaid matter by an order which reads thus:- 3.9.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for...
SukhchaIn Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.14010/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking payment of salary at minimum of the pay scale. The question involved in this writ petition with regard to entitlement of the petitioner to get minimum of the pay scale was considered by a Single Bench of this Court on 30.3.2010 in W.P.No.17751/2006(s) and various other cases and the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 30.3.2010 in W.P.No.17751/2006(s) has been modified by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1227/2010 vide order dated 15.12.2010. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has issued following directions : Thus, for the aforementioned reasons as well as enunciation of law laid down by Supreme Court in Umadevi's case, we are inclined to modify ...
Mohammad Shahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14690/2012 (Mohd. Shahid versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 03.09.2012 Heard Shri Naeem Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has filed this petition wrongly assuming it to be a Habeas Corpus, the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the respondent authorities be directed to take appropriate action on the F.I.R.registered by them against the respondent No.5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and looking to the fact that the police authorities have already registered an FIR in the matter and the process is going on, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to the police authorities as they have already taken action in the matter and it is expected that they shall take all possible steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. ...
Akhilesh Shrivastava Vs. N.S. Pupla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Akhilesh Shrivastava versus N.S.Rupla Conc. No.1318 3. 9.2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Inter alia contending that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12885/2009 on 30.8.2011 has not been complied with, this application has been filed. Having heard Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel it is seen that making same grievance earlier contempt case No.37/2012 was filed before this Court and on 22.8.2012. This Court after considering reply filed by respondents disposed of the contempt proceedings exonerated the non-applicants and granted liberty to the applicant to assail the order that was passed on 31.12.2011, not it is stated that the non-applicant have misleaded the Court in Conc. No.37/2012 and, therefore, they be proceeded against. If that be so, petitioner should approach the same court which had considered and decided the matter in Conc. No.37/2012 by seeking review/recall or modification of order passed. not in the light of order already pass...
Ku. Kshama Bhagat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WA No.881 o3. 9.2012. Shri Sanjay Singh for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dt.9.7.2012 in W.P.No.8490/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the petitioner against show-cause notice (Annexure-P/13) dt.30.5.2012, was disposed of finally with the following direction : The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, he is required to submit reply to the show cause notice, the reply is to be considered by the competent authority of the department and, thereafter, it is for the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the educational certificate of the appellant in respect of computer education was already examined by the Collector, Sehore as is apparent from the perusal of Annexure-P/4 dt.5.11.2005 and only thereafter the appellant was appointed as Patwari,but, again after six years a show...
Shankar Singh Kanesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shankar Singh Kanesh versus State & anr. W.P.No.13924/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Forest Ranger in Sirvel Forest Division Khargon and by the impugned order, he has been transferred to Forest Division Khandwa. Interalia contending that the petitioner is posted in the present place only on 4.10.2010 and No. within a period of two years before completing the tenure as per policy, petitioner is being transferred again and as the transfer policy is violated in the matter, challenge is made to the order of transfer. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made only on the ground of transfer policy being violated and on the aforesaid ground, it is not sufficient enough to interfere in an administrative order of transfer. ...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Ghisa Lal Rathor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Ghisa Lal Rathor & ORS.Review Petition No.637 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.9784/2012 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.6782/2011(s) on 27.4.2011, 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.6782/2...
iliyas Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Iliyas Khan versus State W.P.No.13558/2012 3/9/2012 : Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Forest Guard and is posted in Devarbeli beat, Forest Range East Lanji (Territorial).District Balaghat. By the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to North (Gen) Vanmandal, Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has joined at the present place only on 3.10.2011 and not is being transferred within a short period of time. That apart, it is stated that while working at the present place, petitioner has registered certain criminal cases and therefore, he has been transferred at the instance of vested interest. On the aforesaid two grounds petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner is working at Lanji since 2008 and he has been shifted ...
Manak Ram Bisen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Manak Ram Bisen versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13975/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Jitesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Testing Attendant and has been transferred from Seoni to Mandla Division by the impugned order dated 14.8.2012. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of personal inconveniences of the petitioner, retirement after a period of three years and certain personal inconveniences due to education of petitioner's widow daughter's children, who are studying with the petitioner and ailments of petitioner's wife. The grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the order of transfer are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner and on such grounds, as judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible, no case is made out for interference. Accor...
Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
...VATA No.21 of 2012 M.P.State Mining Corpn. Bhopal Commissioner,Commercial Tax, Indore & otheRs.03.09.2012 Shri G.N.Purohit, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Oswal, Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs.2,34,23,444/-forfeited and sum of Rs.5,27,35,303/- liquidated damages for not lifting the specified quantity of sand, shown as other income, can be treated as sale consideration while there is no transfer of property of goods to the purchaser and can be subjected to Commercial Tax?.. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.Appellant to serve two sets of memo of appeal to Shri Pandey along with the documents. I.A.9890/12 for stay. Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Pandey. He prays for four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Till next date of hearing following directions are issued :- 1. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- Next ›
- Last »