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.
Keshav Sahu Vs. the General Manager, Jila Sahkari Samiti Kendriya Mand ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16007/2012 (Keshav Sahu versus State of M,P. & ors.) 24.09.2012 Heard Shri Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 08.02.2012, passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, removing the petitioner from service as Salesman of the Society on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468/120-B of I.P.C has filed the present petition before this Court. Apparently the petitioner is required to raise a dispute before the competent authority under the provisions of M.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to do so in accordance with law as the issues raised by the petitioner require adjudication on disputed questions of fact which is not permissible in writ proceedings. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed ...
Abhishek Agrawal Vs. Smt. Savitri Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
F.A.No.887/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Issue notice to the respondents, on payment of P.F.within three day. Also heard on I.A.No.10781/2012, which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Issue notice of this application to the respondents, on payment of P.F.within three days. Until next date of listing, it is directed that no third party interest shall be created by the respondents over the suit property. Record of trial Court be called for. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Shailendra Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16027/2012 (S.K.Shukla and others versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Shri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days along with an application for stay, the appellate authority shall take up the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law and shall also pass orders on the application for stay as early as possible. Till then, the operation of the impugned order as far as it directs registration of F.I.R.against the petitioner shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner shall stand disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Anju Dongre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.13523 o24. 09.2012 Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant Ajay Bahadur Pathak, on whose behalf IA No.11395/12, an application to intervene in the matter has been filed. Before hearing the arguments on the question of admission or the aforesaid application of the applicant, I deem fit to call the report regarding present status of the petitioner's application regarding grant of counter signature of regular stage permit from the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 through the State's Counsel, hence the State's Counsel, Smt. Nirmala Nayak is directed to call such report from the concerning official. Such exercise be carried out within 10 days and this matter be listed alongwith such report for admission and consideration of aforesaid IA in the week commencing 16.10.2012. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Smt. Chandrakala Lokhande Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Chandrakala Lokhande versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15579/2012 24/09/2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a lady health worker and is posted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Betul. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 issued by Respondent No.2, petitioner has been transferred from Betul to District-Harda. Petitioner is working in District-Betul since 1995 and in the present establishment since 2000. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that posts are available in Betul and, therefore, petitioner of the petitioner is unsustainable and further pointing out various difficulties in education of her children, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Merely because, some posts are available in Betul and inspite thereof, petitioner is being transferred, it is not for the High Court to interfere into the matter of availability of the posts and vacancy. Requirement of deploying employees is a pure preroga...
Bhojraj Barbade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Bhojraj Barbade versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15550/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Praveen Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents on advance notice. With consent of parties the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 17.7.2012 by which the petitioner has been transferred from District-Betul to District-Harda. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned order the petitioner was transferred from Police Station, Betul to Harda. It is submitted that nobody has been posted in place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file representation to the competent authority with regard to his order of transfer and the competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner shall be d...
Smt. Kamla Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15524/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Neetesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the c...
Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Dr. Kamna Acharya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
1 R.P.No.741/12 24/09/12 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Sr.Counsel with Ku. Surabhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.3 and 4 on advance notice. Seeking review/recall of an order passed on 30th August, 2012 in W.P.No.14355/12, applicant has filed this review application. It is the case of the applicant herein that respondents No.1 and 2 by suppressing certain facts have filed the writ petition and the same has been disposed of by this Court without taking note of certain facts which have some relevance and, therefore, mainly on the ground of suppression, the present review application has been filed. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this review application goes to show that a D.P.C.'s meeting was held in the department concerned on 8th August, 2011. Parties to the dispute namely the applicant and the n...
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.3345/12 24/09/12 Shri L.N.Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. As per the instructions issued by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over an advance copy of the notice to the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who has obtained the instructions from the concerned respondent. The claim made by the petitioner is that the controveRs.involved in the present case is decided by a Division Bench decision rendered in W.P.No.18525/2006 (s) (Vinot Kumar Dhangar versus Co-operative Department and others).It is stated that a representation is made by the petitioner before the concerned respondent for granting the benefit of the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, yet the same is not being considered, therefore, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 fairly states that in case, after consideration, if it ...
Moolchand Raikwar Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Moolchand Raikwar versus state 1 W.P.No.16115/2012 24/9/2012 Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Seeking regularization of his service and challenging the grant of Rs.1 Lacs being made by the respondents vide Annexure P/7, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that challenging certain orders passed by the Labour Court in the matter of reinstatement of the petitioner, the petitioner came to this Court and W.P.No.3318/2011 has been disposed of on 15.9.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court directing for payment of Rs.1 Lacs as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. Order passed by the Division Bench is not being implemented by the respondents. Petitioner has challenged this order only on the ground that in the matter of order dated 15.9.2011 in W.P.No.3318/2011 a review petition No.746/2011 is filed and the same is pending and pending finalization of the rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »