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.
B S S Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
1 W.P.No.15983/2012 B.S.S. Parihar & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.24.09.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by various orders passed by respondent no.4, Estate Officer, M.P.Housing Construction and Infrastructure Development Board, Bhopal, Annexures P-38-A to P-38-J.P-47 & P-48 and the decision of the committee Annexures P-34, P-35 and P-37, whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit the price of land and houses allotted to them at highly enhanced rate which is 300% more than the original price. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had infact applied for and had been allotted houses in the year 2007 at the price prevalent at the relevant time subject to reasonable escalation. However, at the tim...
Vinayak Shiksha Samiti Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15650/2012 (Vinayak Shiksha Samiti versus Commissioner and another) 24.09.2012 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the respondent/Corporation specifically, the Divisional Officer/Executive Engineer or other competent authority by bringing to his notice the fact that the petitioner has placed the building at the disposal of the school for the purposes of exclusively running an educational institution without payment of any rent and is therefore entitled to exemption from payment of property tax in accordance with provisions of Section 136 of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The petitioner is also granted liberty to approach the authority for seeking stay of the proceedings till decision on its representation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Kamal Vs. Leelavati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
C.R.No.278/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Ramashankar Yadav, Advocate for the applicants. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Parasiya in C.S.No.22-A/12 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants- applicants, this revision has been preferred. On perusal of the record it reveals that in the application issue regarding limitation and cause of action was raised. The trial Court considering the material available on record directed that the said issue can be decided after recording evidence because it is a mixed question of law and fact. Accordingly the application was rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the finding so recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application. Accordingly, the revision is rejected notwithstanding the fact that it is barred by time. (J.K.Maheshw...
Man Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Man Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012. Shri S.K.Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Harry, Block Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Harry to Government Primary School Kudra Tola. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as to how the students-tea...
Prashant Kumar Hui Vs. Smt.Gauri Biswas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
C.R.No.280 o24. 09/2012 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. On filing a suit for partition by the plaintiffs, the defendants have submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stating the fact that the valuation of the suit has not been done as per the market value, however the suit ought to be dismissed for want of proper valuation. The reply of the said IA was filed by the plaintiffs and it is stated that the total value of the suit property is Rs.1,38,200/- and the share to the extent of 1/7 has been claimed for, however after payment of the court fee on the said amount of the share the suit has rightly been filed. The learned Trial Court observed that the said objection cannot be decided at this stage because it is a mixed question of facts and law. Being aggrieved this revision has been preferred. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the valuation in the partition suit ought to be made as per the existing market value but he ...
Shivratan Lal Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15506/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners are 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 t...
Khuman Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
khuman patel versus State W.P.No.15949/2012 21.9.2012 Shri Anand Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner claims to be a daily wages employee working in the department for more than 10 yeaRs.It is a case of the petitioner that as he has been working for more than 10 years he is entitled to be regularized in accordance to the policies and Circulars of the State Government. Considering the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel 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 and the circulars issued in pursuance to the same, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to the policies formulated as indicated herein above and decide it within the period of three months. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE MRS.mishra...
Gulab Prasad Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Gulab Prasad Saket versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012. Shri K.B.Vishwakarma for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition by which Collector, District Anuppur has taken away the drawing and disbursing power of the petitioner and has handed over the same to respondent No.8. A perusal of the order-dated 20.8.2010 Annexure P/1, passed by the Collector, indicates that the order was passed more than two years back and by this order, administrative in nature, the financial drawing and disbursing power of the petitioner is taken over only because certain matter against him is pending in the Court of Commissioner, Shahdol. Apart from the fact that the order impugned is passed on 20.8.2010 and this writ petition is filed after a delay of more than two years and in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, very casually petitioner has maintained that there is no delay in filing the writ petition, the fact remains ...
Smt.Monika Billore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15801/2012 (Smt. Monika Billore versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri Ajeet Singh, 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 respondents/police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.3 and 4 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take action in the matter in accordance with law, if necessary. To enable the respondents No.3 and 4, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served upon them by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ram Shiromani Lohar Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
ramshiromani johar versus state 1 W.P.No.15931/2012 24/9/2012 Shri A.M.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Grade III in Khadi Gram Udyog Bhandar, Rewa. By the impugned order dated 28.7.2012 he has been transferred from Rewa to Jabalpur. Inter alia contending that petitioner was transferred earlier vide Annexure P/2 on 23.9.2011 and not again within a short period of one year he is being transferred and pointing out certain difficulties due to family problem, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. As far as transfer of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 on 23.9.2011 is concerned, it was only a local shifting and therefore on the aforesaid ground the case of frequent transfer is not made out. The other grounds raised are the personal inconveniences of the petitioner and the same has to be appreciated and decided by the competent authority and on such grounds judic...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »