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.
Kranti Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W P 1220.of 2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.12207 of 2012 Kranti Kumar Jain and another Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. For the petitioners :- Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Sr. Adv assisted by Shri Kunal Thakre, Adv. For respondent-State :- Shri S.M. Lal, G.A. ORDER (28.09.2012) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ to set aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-24) and allow the application dated 06.03.2002 filed by the petitioner in its entirety. (ii) Any other relief/order/direction as deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of case may be issued. (iii) Cost of the petition may also be granted.2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioners stating themselves to be the owner of agricultural land i...
Ghasiram Arya Vs. Swajan Housing Cooperative Society Limted
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.15197 o28. 09.2012 Shri Sameer Beohar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 21.8.2012, (Ann. P-6) passed by the 16th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in RCS No.327-A/2011, whereby his application filed under 26 Rule 9, for appointment of the Commissioner to call the report of the spot inspection in the light of the inconsistent documents of the defendants- respondents, has been dismissed. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the petition as well as aforesaid Annexure P-4 and other papers placed on record including the impugned order argued that the petitioner has filed the impugned suit for declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the respondents defendants to carry out the construction of any road on the disputed land and in support of such contentions the copy of the lay ou...
Suyash Tiwari Vs. Board of Secondary Education M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.15133/2012 (Suyash Tiwari versus Board of Sec. Education & ors.) 28.09.2012 Heard Shri Anoop Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for revaluation of his answer sheets in the subjects of Hindi (Special).English (General).Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. It is stated that the petitioner has been awarded an over all 84.6% marks, which is less and that he should have been awarded more marks, as a result of which he has been deprived of the benefits which are available to persons who find place in the fiRs.top 10 students in the merit list. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the answer sheets of the petitioner in the aforesaid subjects indicate that the petitioner is entitled to more marks. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has prayed for enhancement of marks on the basis of his personal perception, w...
R.M. Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.M.Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16362 / 2012 (s) 28.9.2012: Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Store-Keeper Pharmacist in the District Hospital Dindori. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred from Dindori under Jabalpur Division to Tikamgarh in Sagar Division. Interalia contending that petitioner has submitted a representation seeking his posting in any nearby place in Jabalpur Division and same has not been considered and he is being transferred to another division i.e.Sagar Division petitioner has filed this writ petition. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel submits that petitioner has continued to in Jabalpur for more than 20 years and, therefore, on such consideration he is transferred nearby Sagar Division and in doing so no illegality has been committed. Matter pertains to transfer of pe...
Sukant Bhattacharya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16124/2012 (Sukant Bhattacharya versus State of M.P.& ors.) 28.09.2012 Petitioner Shri Sukant Bhattacharya, present in person. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondent/Corporation in changing the name of petitioner's daughter in the Births and Deaths Register. It is alleged that the aforesaid change has been made contrary to the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and M.P.Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. It is submitted that though the petitioner has filed several representations before the authorities but no heed has been paid to the same. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the respondent/Corporation be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Corporation to consider an...
Anant Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Anant Kumar Tiwari. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.16368/2012 28/09/2012 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned PL for the respondents/ State on advance notice. Keeping in view orders passed on 9.8.2012 in W.P.No.11491/2012(s) [Narayan Tiwari and others versus State of MP and others]., under similar circumstances with regard to transfer of constables from one District to another, for the present without entering into the merits of the matter and for the grounds and reasons already indicated by this Court on 9.8.2012, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status-quo in the matter of working and posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ...
Sharif HussaIn Raja Vs. Pratap Singh Pawar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR, JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.10515/2011 Sharif Hussain Raja Versus Pratap Singh Pawar *** Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Arjariya, counsel for the respondent. *** O R D E R 28.09.2012 The petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by order dated 11.7.2011 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore whereby the order of taking cognizance under Section 420 of IPC against this applicant passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sehore, was affirmed, with a prayer for setting aside the aforesaid order and further prayer for quashment of the private complaint pending against the applicant. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint against this applicant in the Court of Judicia...
Smt. Sona Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Smt. Sona Shrivastava. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16416 28. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petition...
Dinesh Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Dinesh Verma versus State & ORS.W.P.No.4126/2003 28/09/2012 None appears for the petitioner. This petition was filed on 8th of July, 2003, more than 9 years have passed and till date, even notices have not been issued. Petitioner was a Daily Wages Employee, he was appointed in the year 1988 and his services were dispensed with in the year 2000 and challenging the removal from service, this writ petition is filed. Records indicate that the petitioner's services were terminated by way of retrenchment after paying some retrenchment compensation as is evident from Annexure-P1, that also by the policy of the State Government to retrench all the employees. As the petitioner is terminated by way of retrenchment after complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as is evident from Annexure-P1, petitioner may take recouRs.to the remedy available under law. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. (R...
Raghvendra Prasad Ojha Vs. Munni Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.No.1155/12. 28.09.2012 Mrs.A.Ruprah, Advocate for appellant. Heard on IA No.9567/12, an application for extension of time. Learned counsel for appellant submits that by Order dated 15.5.12 this Court ordered the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- within a period of 60 days, meaning thereby the amount was to be deposited on or before 15.07.12. Counsel submits that the amount was deposited by the appellant on 1.8.12 and thereby some delay was caused in depositing the amount. IA No.9567/12 is allowed. Time is extended up to 1.8.12 to deposit the amount. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the record. Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for appellant submits that she has already filed PF by both modes. Office is directed to issue notice to respondents on the PF already paid. IR dated 15.5.12 to continue till the final decision of this appeal or until otherwise ordered by this Court. C.c.as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »