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.
Smt.Jahan Aara Saudagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
03.09.2012. Shri A.K.Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as ANM, (Women Health Worker) in Gandi Basti, Khandwa. By the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, petitioner has been transferred to Sikandarkhal (Moondi).Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground of ailment of petitioners mother-in-law and the medical treatment being granted to her. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner, which prevents her from carrying out the order of transfer. The personal inconveniences of the petitioner can not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the order of transfer. Accordingly, finding no case for interfering into the matter on the grounds raised, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Madhu Valwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14122/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Shakti K. Soni, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succe...
Tejendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.10939/2012 (Tajendra Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the F.I.R.registered at Police Station, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur on 11.05.2012 under section 307 of the I.P.C.as well as F.I.R.registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur on 04.05.2012. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the complaints of the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. To enable the respondent No.3 to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Swayam Siddhant Sewa Evam Shiksha Samiti (itc) Bhopal Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1 MCC No.1005/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.21332/2011 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 14.08.12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant was on his leg before an another Bench and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2012 passed in W.P No.21332/2011 is recalled and is directed...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board Vs. Anirudh Kumar Gautam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Anirudh Kumar Gautam & ORS.Review Petition No.639 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.9785/2012 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.1539/2011(s) on 28.1.2011, 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.15...
M/S Eastern Minerals Mine Owners Manufacturers and Suppliers Vs. Union ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.C.C.No.992/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Mohd.Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. Nirmala Naik, Govt. Advocate for the respondents no.2 and 3. They are heard. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that time period of one month as given by this Court while disposing off W.P.No.27375/2003 dated 09.08.2012 be extended to three months because formation of the Scheme which is to be submitted by the petitioner takes some time and, therefore, it will not be possible to submit the Scheme within that period. The aforesaid contention is accepted and it is herby directed that applicant shall submit the Scheme in terms of Annexure R/3 11.02.2004 issued by Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal on or before 30.11.2012. With the aforesaid observation, this MCC is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K.Shrivastava) Judge rao...
Duli Chand Burman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.14044 / 2012 (Dulichand Burman..v...State of MP & otheRs.03-09-2012 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by him against the respondent No.6 and 7 in respect of an incident dated 17-8-2010 in which his son, namely, Manot Burman, aged about 25 years had died. Therefore, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent/authorities to conduct an investigation and deal with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition, it is apparent that the police has already taken up the matter and enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the authorities. In the circumstances, as the matter has already taken up for enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the authorities and the e...
Rajkumar Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.5762/2006 Raj Kumar Kushwaha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri A.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned Counsel for respondent No.11. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (3rd September, 2012) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2006 passed in Case No.23/Appeal/2005-2006 by the respondent No.6, the Sub Divisional Officer and Prescribed Authority, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.2. It is contended that a process of recruitment of Panchayat Karmi was initiated by the concerned Gram Panchayat by issuing the advertisement. The applications were made by the petitioner and f...
Usha Kiran Rahul Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Usha Kiran Rahul vs State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.14096 3. 9.2012 MRS.Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as Asst. Grade-II in Public Works Department, petitioner is posted in Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur. On 29.2.2012 petitioner was transferred from the National Highway Circle, Nowgaon to PWD Sub-Division Nowgaon, where she joined. Grievance of petitioner is that after 13 days she is not being shifted after she had joined as Store Clerk, PWD Sub Division Nowgaon, not she is being transferred to Circle Office Nowgaon only to grant adjustment to respondent No.5. It is stated that transfer is only to grant accommodation to certain other person and not contending that cancellation of transfer is not proper it is in violation of transfer policy, interference into the matter is sought for. As far as violation of transfer policy is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that for e...
Smt. Sarita Paraste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Smt. Sarita Paraste versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13936/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher and the Charge of Superintendent of Girls Hostel Chargaon was given to the petitioner. By the impugned order, charge of Superintendent of Girls Hostel is given to Respondent No.5 and the petitioner is being transferred. Interalia contending that the transfer of the petitioner and taking over of charge from her is illegal and further contending that in a earlier writ petition, this Court had interfered into the matter and No. again petitioner is being transferred on same consideration, which was quashed in W.P.No.16651/2011, this writ petition is filed. It is seen from the records that earlier, when the petitioner was transferred in the year 2011 i.e. 29.8.2011, petitioner challenged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 157
- 158
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »