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.
Purushottam Prajapati Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Purushottam Prajapati. versus State Bank of India & Anr. Writ Petition No. 6426 / 2011 (s) 27.9.2012: Shri M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was working as daily wages employees in the establishment of State Bank of Indore and now in view of taking over of the management of said bank by the State Bank of India it seems that petitioner's services have been brought to an end and he is not getting the benefit of being absorbed by the State Bank of India. Seeking the relief and absorption/transfer of his services to the State Bank of India this writ petition is filed. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.K. Mishra has referred to various statutory provision in the matter of claim made by the petitioner, a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that petitioner have a more efficacious alterna...
Raj Kumar Sen Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Raj Kumar Sen & ORS.versus State Bank of Indore & Anr. Writ Petition No. 15314 / 2010 (s) 27.9.2012: Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners were working as daily wages employees in the establishment of State Bank of Indore and now in view of taking over of the management of said bank by the State Bank of India it seems that petitioners services have been brought to an end and they are No. getting the benefit of being absorbed by the State Bank of India. Seeking the relief and absorption/transfer of their services to the State Bank of India this writ petition is filed. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Sanjay Verma has referred to various statutory provision in the matter of claim made by the petitioneRs. a preliminary objection is raised by the respondent...
Prachi Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P No.9903/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9903/2010 PETITIONER : SMT. RASHMI RAJAK Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.9656/2010 PETITIONER : ROOPAM KHARE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.12796/2010 PETITIONER : MADHU GURU Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. WRIT PETITION NO.18229/2010 PETITIONER : PRACHI SHRIWASTWA Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. 2 W.P No.9903/2010 For the petitioner : ...
Aniruddha Mukherjiee Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Writ Petition No.15072/12. 27.9.2012 Shri Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State/respondents no.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to decide his application/representation dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure-P-4) filed for permission to transfer the mining lease of the alleged land in the name of the petitioner from respondents no.4 & 5. Petitioners counsel by referring the averments of the petition and the papers placed on the record has made his limited prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent no.1 to consider and decide his pending application/representation (Annexure-P-4) on some early date with some time bound schedule. State counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the...
Dr. Rameshchand Gupta Vs. Shankarlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Writ Petition No.11009/12. 27.9.2012 Shri V.K.Lahariya , learned counsel for the petitioneRs.None for the respondent no.1/plaintiff although served. Shri Sanjiv Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. The presence of remaining respondent no.2 to 4(C) and 6 do not appear to be necessary to adjudicate this petition as they are co-defendant with the present petitioners in the trial Court and this petition could be adjudicated effectively only in presence of petitioners and the respondent no.1/plaintiff, hence, the notice against unserved respondents are hereby dispensed with. Initially, the case was argued on admission by the petitioners counsel by referring the impugned order along with papers annexed with the petition. In such argument, he apprised me that after closing the evidence of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, the petitioner herein filed the impugned application Annexure-P-12, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to get examine the signature of Harilal, the testator of th...
Madhu Guru Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P No.9903/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9903/2010 PETITIONER : SMT. RASHMI RAJAK Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.9656/2010 PETITIONER : ROOPAM KHARE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.12796/2010 PETITIONER : MADHU GURU Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. WRIT PETITION NO.18229/2010 PETITIONER : PRACHI SHRIWASTWA Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. 2 W.P No.9903/2010 For the petitioner : ...
Smt. Rashmi Rjak Vs. Through Secretary Higher Education Dept.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P No.9903/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9903/2010 PETITIONER : SMT. RASHMI RAJAK Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.9656/2010 PETITIONER : ROOPAM KHARE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.12796/2010 PETITIONER : MADHU GURU Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. WRIT PETITION NO.18229/2010 PETITIONER : PRACHI SHRIWASTWA Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. 2 W.P No.9903/2010 For the petitioner : ...
Smt. Shail Kumari Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :12289 OF 2009(S) Smt. Shail Kumari Singh - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Abhishek Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (27-09-2012) Challenging the order Annexure P-12 dated 26-02-2009 passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the order Annexure P-14 dated 13-08-2009, passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner so also seeking quashment of charge sheet Annexure P-1 dated 20-11-1996 and inquiry report Annexure P-9, this writ petition was originally filed by late Triveni Singh. During the pendency of this writ petition, Triveni Singh had expired and the...
SalauddIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Cr.A.No.1339 o27. 09.12 Ku Anita Kaithwas, counsel for the appellants. Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA for the respondent /State. In compliance of the earlier order, state counsel submits that on verification from the concerning jail it is found that appellants No.1 and 2 are still facing the awarded jail sentence of this case. Such statement is taken o n record. Heard on I.A.No.14186/12, a repeat application on behalf of appellants No.1 and 2, namely,Salauddin and Anwar alias Khachhak for suspension of their jail sentence and grant of bail. Their earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.2.2012. After holding conviction for the offence under Section 379/34 of the IPC, each of them have been directed to undergo for RI 3 yeaRs.As per record they suffered the judicial custody from the date of arrest 20.11.2009 till passing the impugned judgment on dated 12.5.2011 and since then they are facing the awarded jail sentence. In such premises they have suffered nea...
M/S Parihar Transport Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.15195/12(O).27.9.2012. Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 1.9.2012 (Ann. P.7) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby such authority has granted the temporary permit to respondent No.3, pursuant to it the prayer for issuing appropriate order restraining the respondent No.2 to grant further temporary permit to respondent No.3 is also made. The prayer for appropriate direction to respondent no.2 determine the route frequency on issuing the temporary permit is also made. Having heard the counsel and perusing the petition it is apparent that this petition is preferred only against the grant of temporary permit to respondent No.3 up to the period of 30.9.2012, which is going to completed within 2-3 days and therefore, I do not find fit to entertain this petition specifically when under direction of the authority of res...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »