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. Laxmi Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Laxmi Tekam versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16210/2012 25/09/2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that a representation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-P7) in the matter of posting as Superintendent of Hostel in question is still pending before Respondent No.2, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four weeks. As far as challenge to the order of suspension is concerned, petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority and the competent appellate authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 45 days' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Brahma Dutt Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.4699/2012 25.09.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents with Officer-In-Charge of the case. I.A.No.12764/2012 has been filed seeking extension of time to comply with the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2012. This Court has specifically directed to count the period of service of petitioner spent in private school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government for the purposes of granting pension. It is contended that since the pension sanctioning authority is at State level, the time as allowed by the Court is not sufficient to comply with the direction. Considering the aforesaid, two weeks' time as prayed for is granted for compliance of the order dated 17.09.2012. Accordingly, I.A.stands disposed of. It is made clear that in case the order is not complied with within the extended period, serious action would be taken against the respondents. List immediately after the com...
Suryavansham Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 W.P.NO.14755/12 (O) 25.9.2012. Shri R.S.Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manot Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned GA for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order bearing No.1899/Kh.Li./2011 dated 11.11.2011 (Ann. P.9).passed by the authority of the respondent No.2 whereby the extraction of minerals from the alleged mines by the the petitioner has been directed to be stopped till further ordeRs.In view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.5.2012 passed in pending W.P.No.18922/2011 (Ann.P.17).this petition is admitted for final hearing. The State counsel after taking notice of this admission seeks for and is granted the period of one month to file the return. In such premises, no further notice of admission is required to the respondents. Also heard on interim relief as prayed by ...
Smt. Mamta Dharmpal Vs. Shri Lalchand Dharampal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
M.CC. 747/2012. 25.09.2012 Shri Sushil Tiwari, Adv.for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Surendra Mishra, Adv.for respondent. Heard finally at motion stage with the consent of both counsel for the parties. This petition u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the CPC') has been filed in order to transfer case no.83-A/11 (Smt. Mamta Dharmpal versus Shri Lalchand Dharmpal ) which is pending in the court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge (FTC) Katni u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolution of marriage to the court of District Judge, Umariya. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that applicant is a lady and on her behalf three cases filed and are pending at Umariya Court one u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending before Additional District Judge Umariya bearing case no.4-A/12 and two criminal cases are also pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Umariya District Umaria vide case No.1148/11 and criminal case before the cour...
Lal Bahadur Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1547/1996 Lal Bahadur VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1548/1996 Kalidin VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.K.Pandy, counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1547/1996. Smt. Sarita Chourasiya, counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1548/1996. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 25th day of September, 2012) Since both the appeals, arose from the common judgment and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.41/1995, -:- 2 -:- ...
Anand Swaroop Singh Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.418/2012 Anand Swaroop Singh Vs. Union of India & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (25/09/2012) The only grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application for voluntary retirement on 15th August, 2011, which application was pending consideration before the respondents when he applied for grant of leave for the purposes of treatment of his ailing wife, which was granted and after availing of leave he joined the duties. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner was served with an order of voluntary retirement issued on 09.11.2011. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner made an application for cancellation of...
Ramcharan Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.12499/2004 Ramcharan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri B.L. Nag, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (25/09/2012) The grievance set forth by the petitioner appears to be that he was considered for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer as was done in the year 2001 but was not promoted as his name was included in the list of Officers, who were not found fit for such promotion and the juniors to him were promoted by the orders issued in this respect. Later on the petitioner could knot that the juniors were promoted only because of an error committed by the respondents in not considering the petitioner in appropriate m...
Smt.Shobha Balmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Smt Sobha Balmik versus State & Anr M.C.C.No.1756/2008 25/09/2012 Shri K.N.Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.June Choudhary Sr.Advocate with MRS.Jai Laxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondent. This application has been filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Tikamgarh seeking recall of an order dated 28.6.2008 passed in W.P.No.15634/2007. It is stated by the Chief Executive Officer that before filing of the said writ petition W.P.No.15634/2007(s) petitioner has already filed a writ petition along with various other employees being W.P.No.14564/2006(s).this petition was filed by the petitioner along with one Raj Bharti and 10 otheRs.It was filed on 5.10.2006. In the said writ petition, name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No.5. Notices were issued to the respondents on 11.11.2006 and without disclosing the fact about pendency of the writ petition, a second writ petition i.e.W.P.No.15634/2007(s) has been filed and an order was passed on 28.6.2008 for co...
Mohd. Maqbool HussaIn Vs. Vijay Singh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
C.P.No.1528/12 25/09/12 Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the records, it is seen that the order by this Court was only passed on 15/05/12 and the respondents were granted 90 days time to take action. A copy of this order has been served on the respondents only on 25/05/12 and even though the period of 90 days may be over not but the fact remains that certain legal questions involved in the matter is pending before the competent authority and, therefore, it is not appropriate to initiate action for contempt at this stage. Petitioner may seek initiation of action for contempt after a further period of two months. With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
J.K. Bedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13632/2011 25/09/2012 Shri Amal Pushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. On the last date of hearing this Court has specifically ordered the personal appearance of Principal Secretary of the Department to explain the default of not filing the return. A return is said to be filed on 17 th September 2012 along with an unstamped application for grant of exemption from personal appearance to the Principal Secretary. The said application is supported by an affidavit by the In-charge Joint Director Social Justice, Jabalpur. Since the application is not stamped, the same cannot be treated as an application for grant of exemption. It is further seen that specific allegations raised by the petitioner in the writ petition have not suitably been replied by the respondents and it has been tried to shift the burden on the department of Women and Child Development, with respect to the fixation of seniority of...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »