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.
Jalsu Singh Marabi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.10776/12 (s) 21/09/12 Shri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 7/06/12 passed by the Collector, Dindori remanding the matter back to the competent authority and directing the Gram Panchayat to conduct the process of selection afresh, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that a process of selection to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was undertaken and petitioner was granted appointment. Respondent No.6 challenged the said appointment and in the impugned order, the matter has been remanded back to the Gram Panchayat for fresh consideration. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector indicates that for the post in question, 3 candidates have submitted their application. Petitioner Jalsu Singh Marabi had obtained 46 marks. Respondent Shri Dayalu Singh had obtained 43 marks and one Shri Omprakash had received 51 marks. It was found that inspite of ...
Komal Singh Vs. Sahab Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15298 o21. 09.12 Shri Nitin Agarwal, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 1.9.12 (Annx.P/1 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I whereby closing their right to adduce the evidence, the case has been posted for final arguments and as per submission of the counsel, the same is fixed today before the trial court for such arguments. After taking me through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order sheet of the trial court, he argued that the impugned suit has been filed by respondent No.1 and 2 against the petitioners for declaration, partition and separate possession of the disputed undivided joint Hindu family property and, in the available circumstances, if the opportunity to adduce the supporting evidence is not extended to the petitioners then not only the petitioners but his next gen...
Arun Biranwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Arun Biranwar versus State of MP and otheRs.21.09.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and is posted in Patwari Halka No.18, Tehsil and District Balaghat. By the impugned order petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No.3 Tehsil Kirnapur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and it is stated that petitioner is a handicapped person and, therefore, the transfer is contrary to the transfer policy. Petitioner is only transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same District and as the transfer in question is not challenged on the ground of any statutory rule or regulation being violated, not is any malafide established from the material available on record, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies...
Shek Mohammad Anshari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Writ Petition No.15250/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Mukesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 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 ci...
Hanuman Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15442/20121. 09.2012 Shri V.P.Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By this petition, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of grant of second Kramonnati under the scheme of the State Government. 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 passed in W.P.No.5756/2008(S).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra).the directions given are 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 mention...
V.K.Bharadwaj Vs. State of Mp
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.24159/2003 21.09.2012 Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It is really astonishing that the respondents, though were served with the petition when it was originally filed before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, in the year 1999, yet no attempts were made to file the return. The order sheets indicate that on every such occasion, the time was taken by the learned Govt. Advocate for filing of the return. However, since the return has not been filed, the matter could not be listed for final hearing. In view of the aforesaid, the Commissioner Excise, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, to appear before this Court to explain the default why the return was not filed in the aforesaid writ petition expeditiously. The petition be listed on 5.11.2012. A typed copy of the order be supplied to the learned Govt. Advocate for communication of the same to the concerned authority. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj...
Shyamlal Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Versha Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
CON.C.No.176/20121. 09.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri P. Shankaran, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. A reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the respondents and it has been indicated that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16655/2011 on 30.09.2011 has been complied with and the orders have been issued on 03.02.2012. Looking to the aforesaid, no case is made out to proceed any further with the contempt case and the contempt proceedings are dropped. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that in case he is aggrieved, he may challenge the order passed by the respondents in appropriate petition. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Ram Ratan Kourav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15402/2012 21.09.2012 Smt. S.K.Soni, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. 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 discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and ...
Ram Lal Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
21.09.2012. Ms.Neelam Goel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Seeking regularization of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment and contending that regularization has been granted prospectively whereas in the case of various other employees retrospective regularization with effect from the initial date of appointment has been granted, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was appointed in the irrigation department as a daily wage employee on the post of Chowkidar. It is stated in the writ petition that petitioner was appointed in the year 1979, but in the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition Annexure P/1, the date of appointment of the petitioner is indicated to be in the year 1981. Be it as it may be, when the petitioner had worked for a certain period of time and when the services of the petitioner were not regularized and when the claim of all the daily wage employees, wh...
Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
smt. sudha devi versus state W.P.No.19485/2011 21/09/12 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned counsel for the interveNo.- Shri Anand Kumar Verma. Petitioner claims to be widow of Late Shri B.L.Verma who was working as Principal, Government High School. Inter alia contending that after death of her husband petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefit so also consideration of her claim for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ petition was filed. While issuing notice to the respondents this Court issued an interim direction on 23.11.2011 directing the respondents to settle the monetary claim of the petitioner after death of her husband. It is not seen from the records that in pursuance to the interim order as far as monetary claim are concerned, same has been decided and orders Annexure R/1 has been passed on 17.1.2012 settling the monetary claims of the petitioner. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »