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.
Chhaya Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Chhaya Pathak. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16400 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 petitioner witho...
M.P.Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Munnalal Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
MPRTC & Anr. versus Munnulal Pathak & Anr. W.P.No.6035/2008 28/09/2012 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition was filed on 12th of May, 2008. It is yet to be admitted. It is listed today for the fiRs.time. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order Annexure-P1 passed by the Industrial Court directing for payment of Bonus, Wages for the work done on holidays, Overtime Wages and Night Halt Allowance. After due appreciation of the material available on record, the Industrial Court granted benefit to the employee and challenging the aforesaid findings of the Industrial Court, this writ petition is filed. It is seen that challenging similar orders passed by the Industrial Court, two other writ petitions were filed. One of which was W.P.No.6037/2008(s).wherein similar orders passed by the Industrial Court had been upheld and both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court. As the findings are recorded by the Industrial Court in the matter of gra...
Chakradhar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.P.No.644/10 28/09/12 Shri K.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Even though, various grounds are raised in this application, during the couRs.of hearing of the Review application, Shri A.P.Singh submitted that petitioner is more than 80 years of age not and, therefore, the order passed by this Court on 15/09/10 in W.P.No.9154/08 (s) shall be implemented forthwith at an earlier date so that petitioner can receive the benefit of the order without any further delay. It is stated by Shri A.P.Singh that orders of promotion in pursuance to the directions issued in the writ petition have been issued in December, 2011 and he produces before me a copy of the said order. It is stated that this order was filed by the respondents in a contempt application that was filed in the matter. Be it as it may be, considering the fact that the order of promotion was already passed on 20/12/11, more than 8 months...
Laxmi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Writ Petition No.13994/12. 27.9.2012 Shri Ashok Chakrawarti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for the State-respondents on advance copy. State counsel seeks for and is granted the period of three weeks to file the return in the matter with a observation that if return is not filed before next hearing even then, this matter shall be heard on admission as well as for final disposal. As the State counsel has taken time to file the return, therefore, no further notices are required to the respondents. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of possession and structure of the disputed property as it exists today. Let this matter be listed immediately after three weeks or, in any case, in the week commencing 5.11.2012, along with W.P.Nos.8134/12 and 10895/12. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Smt.Archana Dhoke Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Smt. Archana Dhoke versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16330 27. 9.2012: Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Paryavekshak in the project under the Women and Child Development Department, vide order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from Narsinghpur to Chhatarpur. Challenging the aforesaid transfer order petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.12333/2012 (s) and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State this Court on 16.8.2012 found that the grounds raised by petitioner for challenging order of transfer does not show violation of any statutory provision, nor is any malafide made out and, therefore, it is not a case for judicial review. Further as the representation of petitioner is pending, the competent authority was directed to consider and decid...
Ram Milan Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Writ Petition No.13351/12. 27.9.2012 Shri Dilip Kapse, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.11738/12, petitioners application for taking the annexed documents on record. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and such annexed papers are taken on record. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents no.2 to renew his stamp vendor license for the year 2012-13. In alternate, the prayer for appropriate direction to the aforesaid respondents to consider and decide his pending representation, is made. Having heard, keeping in view the facts and circumstances as appeared from the petition and the papers placed on the record along with the circumstances that the petitioner was remained stamp vendor since 1994 till 2011-12, instead to admit or issuing any notice of th...
Halke Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 Cr. A. No.1957/2000 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1957/2000 Halke and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.K. Dixit, counsel for the appellants. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 27th day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.7.2000 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.201/96, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each of them to undergo for six m...
Manohar Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Cr.R. No.913/2005 Manohar Chouksey Vs. State of M.P. and others As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri H.S. Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Shri A.K. Chourasia, PL for the State. ORDER (27.9.2012) 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T. No.170/2009 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that accused Anup Kumar and others are facing trial for the offence under section 304-B, 498-A/34 of the IPC. During trial, the applicant filed an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for taking the cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inter-alia pleading that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also committed cruelt...
Kanhaiyalal Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.16243/12 27/09/12 Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Inter alia contending that petitioner has been suspended for certain allegations on which an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry as is evident from Annexure P-6 dated 21/02/12 and further contending that petitioner is suspended again by the C.E.O. who is not competent to suspend the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. As far as suspension of the petitioner by the C.E.O. is concerned, Shri S.S.Bisen invites my attention to the suspension order Annexure P-7 dated 9/08/12 and points out that suspension has been ordered by the Collector, the C.E.O. has only communicated the order and, therefore, the ground raised in this regard is unsustainable. As far as the other ground raised is concerned, Shri Bisen submits that the suspension is ordered under Rule 9 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ru...
Syed Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.No.16308/12 (s) 27/09/12 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working on the post of 'Peon' in Govt. Jaslok Alpa Sankhayak Girls Hostel and Girls Middle School Bairagarh, Distt. Bhopal and was suspended. The suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and instead of posting the petitioner at the same place from where he was suspended, he is posted to another establishment, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others versus Dr.R.K. Shastri and another, 2005(4) M.P.H.T.352 , learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner cannot be posted in the place other than the place from where he was suspended and in posting the petitioner to another establishment, it is stated that respondents have acted contrary to the law laid down in the case of Dr.R.K. Shastri (supra) and accord...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »