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.
Virendra Kumar Shrivas Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.5871/20024. 09.2012 Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. The order-sheet indicates that opportunities were granted to learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions whether any policy is made by the State Government pursuant to the recommendation made by the U.G.C.or not and whether the same has been applicable to the persons like petitioner. Again today a request for grant of time is made on the ground that there was lack of communication on account of which the information could not be obtained. The matter is of the year 2006 and ample opportunities have been granted to the respondents to seek instructions and make a submission before this Court. However, in the interest of justice, as a last opportunity, four weeks time is allowed to obtain the instructions and make a submission before this Court. If this is not done, the Principal Secretary of the Department of Technical...
Amita Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16051/12 (s) 24/09/12 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. In view of the fact that petitioner is claiming regularization and office of respondents is situated in Bhopal and in many other cases petitions have been entertained in Principal Seat by virtue of orders passed by the Honble Chief Justice, office objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction is over ruled. Petitioner is working as daily wages employee in the respondents department since 2.2.88 and has completed more than 10 years of service and regularization is claimed on the ground that juniors have been regularized and on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are dir...
indira Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Indira Dwivedi. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.15974 24. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claims similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner wit...
Proprietor Gulati Enterprises Vs. Shri Shri 1008 Jagat Guru Shankarach ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.994/2012 24.09.2012 Shri R.K.Verma and Ms.Preeti Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms.Neelam Goel, learned counsel for respondent, on caveat. Heard on I.A.No.10554/2012, which is an application for stay. Let copy of appeal memo and I.A.No.10554/2012 be supplied to Ms.Geol during couRs.of the day. Until next date of listing, subject to depositing of arrears of rent within a month, if already not deposited, and to pay regular rent on or before 15th day of every month, execution of impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed. In the meantime, record of two Courts below be called for. List in the month of November, 2012 for admission as well as for further orders on I.A.No.10554/2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Bhupendra Singh Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Bhupendra Singh Parihar & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.15999 24. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioners is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioneRs.Petitioners claim grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the...
Mahesh Kumar Modi Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.664/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether lower appellate Court was justified to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of bona fide need without recording the finding to that effect and also without considering the cross- objection filed in this regard by the defendant, however, the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court is vitiated on this ground ?.. Let copy of appeal memo as well as questions of law be supplied to the other side. Till final disposal of this appeal, interim order passed earlier shall remain in operation. Considering the fact that that this appeal relates to eviction on the ground of bona fide need, however, list this appeal for final hearing in the month of November, 2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Narmada Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15557/2012 24.09.2012 Shri L.S.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.L.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 5.7.2012, it is communicated to him that his date of birth being 1.10.1954, he would attain the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years on 30.9.2012 and would retire. This has been said only because the allegation is made that the petitioner has not submitted any option to get extension of his age of superannuation upto the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that the petitioner was sick and was on leave. Immediately on recovery, he submitted the joining on 25.5.2012 along with the medical certificate and on the very same date, he gave his option to remain in the employment upto the age of 60 years on 25.5.2012. Despite making this option, the same was not considered. Considering the aforesaid, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within seven days by registered A.D....
Smt. Durga Bai Patle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15555/2012 ( Smt. Durga Bai Patle versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Collector by taking up appropriate proceedings under section 21 (4) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case the petitioner does so within a week, the said authority shall not dismiss the application only on the ground of limitation. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
R.K. Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
24.09.2012. Shri A.K.Pathak for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Senior Agriculture Development Officer in the office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Umaria. Vide order-dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Alirajpur. However, pointing out certain personal difficulties and indicating that petitioners transfer is not on administrative consideration, petitioner represented and on the said representation the Incharge Minister of the District vide Annexure P/7 dated 13.7.2012 recommended for cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner; and, the Joint Director, Shahdol under whom the petitioner is working, vide endorsement made on the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/8 on 4.8.2012, pointing out certain administrative reasons, has also sought for cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner. All these matters are pending before the competent authority of the State Government an...
Smt. Asha Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15457/2012 24.09.2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the petition is made for grant of family pension but there is nothing on record to indicate that the husband of the petitioner is said to be died. Only this much is said that he is missing for a period of seven yeaRs.However, the fact remains that the husband of the petitioner was compulsory retired on account of continuous absence by issuance of an order after a departmental enquiry. In case the Government servant is imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement he is still entitled to grant of pension and other retiral dues. Since it is not clear whether such amount is paid to the petitioner or not, notices of this writ petition be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. List immediately after six weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »