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.
Shivram Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shivram Raikwar versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13674/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Ward Boy in Primary Health Centre Gandhva (Pandhana) District East Niwar and has been transferred to Health Centre Moondi. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to ailments of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Suman Raikwar and various other grounds personal in nature. Keeping in view the personal inconveniences of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that these grounds are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the department. As the petitioner has submitted representation with regard to the same, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant copies of the representations, the competent authority is directed to decide the same in accordanc...
Ku.Sangeeta (Secretary) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Ku.Sangeeta versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14187/2012 04/09/2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, 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 question of transfer of the petitioner and tenability of the order Annexure-P3 dated 17.2.2012 is pending consideration before the State Government, proposal of the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Hoshangabad to suspend the petitioner as contained in Annexure-P5 dated 23.7.2012 seems to be not proper. In view of the above, further action in the show cause notice Annexure-P5 dated 23.7.2012 is directed to be stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Smt. Abha Vs. Smt. Ramrani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.A.No.1522/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for appellant. Heard on IA No.7938/12, an application for amendment in the memo of appeal. Since the amendment sought to be made is about the details of amount awarded, hence IA No.7938/12 is allowed. Let amendment be carried out during the couRs.of the day. Also heard on IA No.6411/12, an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment. For the reasons stated in the application (IA 6411/12).it is allowed. This amendment be also carried out during the couRs.of the day. Also heard on IA No.6279/12, an application for stay of operation of award dated 8.2.12 passed by MACT and District Judge, Damoh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.115/2010. Learned counsel for appellant submits that statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant. He submits that if the proceedings are not stayed, this appeal will become infructuous. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is directed that on further depo...
Ravendra Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Ravendra Shukla versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.13651 3. 9.2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as Section Writer and he has been transferred from one office to another in the same district. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to emphasize that petitioner is being transferred on complaints made by respondent No.5, these allegations are made only in the representation of petitioner and the material available on record is not sufficient enough to substantiate the aforesaid contention of malafide. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is only shifted to another office in the same district, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to departmental remedies available this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Amar Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13813/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006, his retiral dues have not yet been settled for which he has made a representation before the respondents-authorities. It is contended that the last representation was made on 19.07.2012 addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, he is required to file this writ petition. Undisputedly, the Municipal Corporation employee is also entitled to the grant of pensionery benefit and retiral dues, and as per the Rules made by the State Government the competent authority to decide the same is the directorate of pension in the office of the Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Bhopal, and the head of the office is Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar concerned. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed o...
Dr.Pratibha Rajgopal Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
WRIT PETITION No.1258/20103. 09.2012 Shri R.S.Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No.6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 states that he has not received copy of amended petition and, therefore, since it appears that nothing was claimed against respondent No.6, return has not been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to deliver a complete set of amended petition to learned Counsel appearing for the respondents within two days. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 is granted four weeks' time to file the return. Rejoinder to the return filed by the State has been filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.3804/2012. I.A.stands allowed. The rejoinder is taken on record. Let a copy of the rejoinder be also served to learned Counsel for the respondents, who will seek instructions and file the additional return within four weeks, if necessary. List thereafte...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. SachIn Saxsena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Sachin Saxsena & ORS.Review Petition No.635 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.9786/2012 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.2888/2011(s) on 18.2.2011, 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.2888/201...
Mihilal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13980/2012 (Mihilal Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri P.S.Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents No.5 to 7 in respect of death of his daughter. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to look into the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the respondents/authorities to prosecute the respondents No.5 to 7 or to compulsorily register a case against them, therefore they would be at liberty to examine the matter and take steps in accordance with law. To enable the respondents/authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of...
Shobha Raghuvanshi 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...
Smt. Urmila Pandre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Smt. Urmila Pandre & anr. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13963/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.This petition has been filed by the petitioneRs. who are husband and wife and are working as MultiPurpose Workers in Sub Health Centre, Jhamta, Community Health CentreBichhua DistrictChhindwara. By the impugned order AnnexureP2 dated 6.8.2012, both petitioners (husband and wife) have been transferred out of the District i.e. from DistrictChhindwara to District Seoni and challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that within a short period of less than 24 days, petitioners are being transferred again. Further contending that the transfer of the petitioner out of the district will cause serious inconveniences to them, challenge is made to the order of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the order passed on 13.7.2012 transferring t...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 158
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »