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.
Surendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
surendra mishra versus State W.P.No.13040/2012 21.9.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.K.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioners claim to be a daily wages employee working in the department for more than 25 yeaRs.It is a case of the petitioners that as they have been working for more than 25 years they are 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 petitioners 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...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxman Prasad Lohar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
State & ORS.versus Laxman Prasad Lohar W.P.No.10554/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners/State. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the Respondent/Workman. Challenging the orders passed by the labour court and the industrial courts, this writ petition has been filed by the State Government. Records indicate that an order was passed by the labour court on 28.4.1993 directing classification of the employee concerned. The appeal was filed against the aforesaid order passed in the year 1993 vide Annexure-P5 before the industrial court vide Annexure-P6 in the year 2011 i.e.on 19.8.2011 after a period of more than 8 yeaRs.The appeal has been dismissed by the industrial court on the ground of delay and, thereafter when the execution proceedings were filed and which has been dismissed, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that the appeal filed was infact dismissed vide Annexure-P11 on 19th of July, 2011 and it was a prayer made for staying of the ...
Durgesh Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.11934/12 (s) 21/09/12 Shri S.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Claiming compassionate appointment after death of his father Shri Ammu Lal Sahu who died in the couRs.of employment on 17/08/08, petitioner had submitted the application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same is still pending and the decision is not taken, petitioner is before this Court. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is still pending, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merit, respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/...
Bhel Diploma Engineer Welfare Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.14917 /2012 21.09.2012 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents. At this stage, Shri O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel appears and accepts notice of the writ petition on behalf of the respondent No.1. No process is required to be paid for issuance of notice of this writ petition to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a complete copy of the writ petition along with annexures during the couRs.of the day to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner to pay Process Fee for issuance of notices of this writ petition to respondents No.2 to 4 by registered A.D.within seven days. Notices be made returnable within six weeks. List immediately after six weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj....
Narvada Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15059/2012 21.09.2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 1.9.2012, (Ann. P-7) passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-II in C.O.S.No.112-A/2009 whereby his application filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner for calling the commissionary report of the disputed property, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments, on making certain query based on the impugned order, so also the present status of the impugned case before the trial court as the same is at the stage of final arguments, on which instead to argue further, petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission with withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the objections and the grounds stated in the petition subject to judgment of the trial court, on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. Considering...
Suresh Kumar Kumbhalwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Suresh Kumar Kumbhalwar versus State of MP and otheRs.21.09.2012. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary and has been suspended. Appeal filed by the petitioner having also been rejected by the appellate authority, namely the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition challenging the order of suspension and petitioner has tried to emphasize that his suspension is unwarranted and not called for, but after making submissions for sometime learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance to the statutory rules applicable as petitioner has a right to submit a review application to the competent authority, seeking review/reconsideration of the order of suspension, for the present he may be granted liberty to seek review of the order of suspension. Taking note of the a...
Phool Chand Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 W.P.NO.14877/11. 21.9.2012. Shri R.P.Kanojia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for the respondent No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. As per office report such respondent has refused to take the notice sent by this Court. In such premises, it is held that inspite service of notice he has not appeared before the Court. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent No.2 to 4 to implement the order of removal of encroachment passed by the Tahsildar against the respondent No.5 in Revenue Case No.73- B/121/08-09 under Section 248 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the Code.).Having heard the petitioner's counsel at length, I am of the considered view that with respect of the provision of Section 248 of the Code and implementation of it's order the entire procedure is pro...
Rajesh Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Rajesh Tiwari versus State & ORS.W.P.No.1582/2011 21/09/2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondents/State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming regularization in service. From the return filed by the respondents and the averments made in Para-3, it is seen that the case of the petitioner for regularization was placed before the appropriate Scrutiny Committee and after examination, the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report as is evident from Annexure-R1 & R2, however, as the petitioner has passed Shorthand Hindi Certificate Examination from the State Board Examination Lucknow, it is indicated that the return for verification of the certificate obtained from the said institute is awaited and further action shall be taken only after verification is completed. It is also indicated that in this regard a letter has been sent to the Director Employment & Training, Guru Govind Singh Marg, LuckNo.(U.P.) and a report ...
Alloo @ Koshi Pd. and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 Cr. A. No.1515/199 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1515/1999 Anantram Barar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri M. Safiquallah, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21st day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.5.1999 passed by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.149/98, whereby the appellant No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394/398 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' R.I. with fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to un...
Smt. Sunita Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Smt. Sunita Rai versus State of MP Serial No.1 21.09.2012. Shri A.K.Singh for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working on the post of ANM and has been transferred by impugned order Annexure P/1, and relieved by order Annexure P/2. Interalia contending that petitioner has already served in the rural area for more than 13 years and as per the policy of the State Government, petitioner cannot No.be posted in the rural area, this writ petition is filed. A representation of the petitioner in this regard is already pending. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents before the competent authority, the competent authority shall examine the case of the petitioner, decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four weeks. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules....
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »