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. Kusum Kali Patel Vs. M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.16119/12 (s) 25/09/12 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a daily wages Peon in the respondents' establishment since 11/12/95. She claims regularization in service. It is the case of the petitioner that in the appointment order Annexure P-2 itself it is indicated that after working for more than 2 yeaRs.claim of the petitioner shall be referred to a Regional Selection Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her claim is not sent to the said committee for regularization and in the case of one Smt. Parwati Verma who is appointed along with the petitioner, orders have been passed granting her regularization. Inter alia contending that petitioner's case has not been considered for regularization in accordance with the stipulation contained in the appointment order Annexure P-2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of th...
Bittu Raja Vs. Rajkumari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.1123/2011 24.09.2012 Shri J.L.Soni, Advocate with the appellant. Shri Rajneesh Choubey, Advocate with the respondents No.1 and 2. Heard on admission. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2011 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge,Tikamgarh in Regular Civil Appeal No.106-A/2011 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.3.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/2009. A suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of the land of KhaSr.No.94 total area 1.279 hectare out of which to the extent of 2/3 share area 0.719 hectare, KhaSr.No.642 total area 0.129 hectare and KhaSr.No.644 area 0.178 hectare total area 1.159 hectare situated in village Maatoul, tahsil Jatara, district Tikamgarh. The suit was decreed and the sale-deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 12.7.2007 was also declared as null and void. It was further d...
Tarachand Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Tarachand Yadav versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15283/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Baiga Piparia under Janpad Panchayat Lakhnadaun and has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Sarra, under Janpad Panchayat Dhanora in the same district. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in violation of the transfer policy, without resolution and without consent, the transfer has been effect. Merely because the transfer policy is violated, interference into the matter is not called for by a writ of mandamus in view of the law laid down in the cases of Union of India and Others versus S.L.Abbas AIR 199.SC 123.and R.S.Chaudhary versus State of MP and others ILR (2007) MP 132.. Accordingly, granting liberty to the competent authority to look into the matter, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Sai Preet Construction Company Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Company L ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
A.A.No.46 o24. 09.2012 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.10291/2012 which is an application for stay. Issue show cause notice against admission as well as I.A.No.10291/2012 to the respondent on payment of process fee within three days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that in furtherance to the order dated 30.6.2012 the possession of the vehicle has not yet been taken. In such circumstances, it is directed that until next date of listing the status quo as it exists today with respect to delivery of possession of vehicle in furtherance to the impugned order shall remain stayed. C.c.as per rules. (J.K.MAHESHWARI) JUDGE DV...
Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.C.C.No.1051/20124. 09.2012 Shri Alok Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicants. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents-State. Though the office has raised an objection with respect to maintainability of this M.C.C.as correction in the cause title of the disposed of writ petition has been sought, which is not otherwise permissible in law but looking to the fact that the typographical error has been pointed out only with respect to surname of petitioner No.6, such an objection of the office is overruled. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicants that the cause title of W.P.No.9236/2012 was incorrectly typed with respect to the name of petitioner No.6 and instead of mentioning his name as Kedar Singh., it was written as Kedar Singh Ahirwar.It is contended that because of this error, the petitioner No.6 may not get the benefit of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid, this M.C.C.is allowed. It is directed that the autho...
Rajaram Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.9188 o24. 09.2012 Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 Mining Officer whereby his application for extension of time to extract the mineral from the mine has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, in view of Rule 57 (2) of the M.P.Mining Mineral Rules 1996 in which the impugned order is made appealable, on making certain query regarding maintainability of this petition, on which petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file the appeal before the Director to challenge the impugned order, Annexure P-5. Considering his prayer the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed by extending the aforesaid liberty to file the appea...
Kisan Lal Parochi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15795/20124. 09.2012 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question involved is common. T...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.C.C. No.1776 o24. 09/2012 Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the applicant. This review petition is for relaxation of guidelines made in paragraph 8(a) of the order dated 29-03-2011 passed in M.C.C. No.203/2001 whereby on a consensus of the parties certain guidelines were formulated for Educational Institutions directing that the same would be followed from the academic year 2001-2002 onwards. Paragraph 8 (a) whereof stipulates that a) Every school in M.P. shall complete the process of admission by end of July and the said date shall not be extended in any case beyond 12 t h August.. The State and its functionaries while experiencing difficulties in exceptional cases to adhere to the stipulations as contained in paragraph 8 (a) of the order, has been approaching this Court seeking relaxation. Earlier M.C.C. No.1927/2006 was filed. One time extension was granted while taking note of the fact of exceptional circumstances which have cropped up. Thereafter the present...
Jivan Kumar Vs. Nandkishore Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.614/2012 24.09.2012 Shri S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether two Courts below were justified in granting the decree under Section 12(1)(c) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent ?. (ii) Whether two Courts below were justified to decree the suit under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act on the ground of bona fide need and the finding so recorded is not perveRs.?.. Let copy of appeal memo as well as questions of law be supplied to the other side. Till final hearing of this appeal, interim order passed earlier shall remain in operation. Considering the fact that the decree has also been granted under Section 12(1)(e) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act (bona fide need).list this appeal for final hearing in the third week of Novemb...
Hirdeshvar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15716/2012 (Hirdeshvar Sharma versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the police authorities to conduct proper investigation into the alleged offence and take action in accordance with law against the accused persons and to delete the names of the petitioner and others from the array of the accused persons in the complaint filed by the opposite party. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the documents filed along with the petition, it is apparent that in view of the incident that occurred between two rival parties, a complaint and counter complaint have been filed by both the parties which have been registered as Crime Nos.20/12 and 21/12 at Police Station Chandiya, District Umariya and the matter is under investigation. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the police authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »