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.
Swami Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.462/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Pranay Verma and Shri K.S.Jha, Advocates for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. Heard. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Regular Civil Appeal No.9-A/2011, affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Niwadi, district Tikamgarh in C.S.No.172-A/2006. The suit was filed with respect to KhaSr.No.4245, area 5.360 hectares, out of which land measuring 0.400 hectare is in dispute. It is stated that after constructing boundary wall the plaintiff is using the said land for agricultural purposes. It is said that the government granted a Patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land of KhaSr.Nos.4242, 4243 and 4244 of the said village adjacent to the disputed land. In the said Patta it was specified that th...
Bhajan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Bhajan Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15995/2012 24/09/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Teacher and the charge of Government Primary Boys' Hostel- Bakeli District-Umariya was granted to the petitioner. not by the impugned order dated 23.8.2012, the charge is taken over from the petitioner and it is granted to Respondent No.5 and the petitioner directed to work at his substantive post of Assistant Teacher. It is indicated in the order Annexure-P1 that in the inspection conducted by the Collector on 22.8.2012, certain irregularities were found in the hostel and, therefore, the charge is taken over from the petitioner. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Teacher and the charge is taken over from the petitioner on the basis of certain administrative necessity indicated. As the petitioner does not have any legal right enforceable by a Writ Court to continue in the temporary charge, i...
Ambedkar Saw Sahayta Samhoo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.8165 / 2012 (Ambedkar Saw-Sahayata Samooh Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 24-09-2012 Shri R.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has filed an application (I.A.No.9741/2012) as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy before the competent authority to assail the validity of the impugned order dated 3-5-2012, passed by the respondent No.3. In view of the aforeasaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to assail the impugned order dated 3-5-2012 before the competent authority in accordance with law. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within a month along with a copy of order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing all concerned and shall not dismiss the same only on the ...
Mahesh Kumar Kostha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15526/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Alok Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by the petitioner that he is working in an autonomous college and could not be transferred in the manner without his consent to another autonomous college. In view of the aforesaid as also in view of the fact that in the identical circumstances this Court has entertained the writ petition and has granted interim stay, operation of the impugned order dated 12/07/2012 (Annexure P-3).in so far as it relates to the petitioner and consequential order of relieving dated 19/07/2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. The petitioner be permitted to work at present place of posting. List along with W.P.No.11599/2012 immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Padam Lal Pichhore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Padam Lal Pichhore & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15473/2012 24/09/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioners are working as Daily Wages Employees in the Public Works Department. It is their contention that they have worked for more than 20 years and have filed this writ petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006).SCC Page 1 and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (Supra) and decide the claim of the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of r...
Dhirendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15802/2012 (Dhirendra Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit the demand made by the respondents towards arrears of royalty and in such circumstances, the respondents be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for determination of lease Annexure P/2. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of royalty demanded from the petitioner by Annexure P/3 and clears all other dues, the authorities would, thereafter, consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/2 in accordance with law. To enable the authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed...
Sukhendra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15456/2012 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. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing...
Ramanand Pidiha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
ramanand versus state 1 W.P.No.16219/2012 24/9/2012 Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dated 17.9.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Revenue, Rewa. Challenge to the order of suspension is made mainly on the ground that the allegations leveled in the order of suspension are not correct. Petitioner has already been relieved before the cause of action for the allegations arose and without taking note of material fact with regard to relieving of the petitioner, suspension has been ordered. Petitioner has submitted an application for review Annexure P/12 which is pending before the respondent No.4, Commissioner, Revenue, the authority who has suspended the petitioner and it is stated that the said authority is not taking note of the averments made by the petitioner in the review application and is not passing any order wit...
Jagdish Vs. Smt. Sushma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.937/2012 24.09.2012 Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent. Also heard on I.A.No.9780/2012, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. Until admission of the appeal, eviction part of the decree shall remain stayed subject to depositing arrears of rent within a month, if already not deposited and the appellant shall further deposit the regular rent on or before 15th day of every month. Record of two Courts below be called for. List in the month of November, 2012 for admission. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Suresh Singh Parmar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15509/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, 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. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »