Madhya Pradesh Court February 2013 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.
Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. M.P. Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.7290/2012 20.02.2013 Shri S.M.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner vide this petition seeks direction to M.P.Professional Examination Board to recheck/revaluation the answer sheet of examination of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III Eligibility Test-2011. Petitioner appeared in the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III Eligibility Test-2011 held by respondent and obtained 76.77 marks and was declared disqualified. It is contended by the petitioner that despite of his performing excellent in the examination he has been wrongly declared disqualified as the answer sheets were not properly valued by the respondents. It is for redressal of said grievance, present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to revalue/reject the same. No Rules/Regulations has been brought on fore as would create a right in favour of a participant in competitive examination i.e.Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III Eligibility Test-2011 to seek revaluation/recheck of the...
Hukum Chand Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2542/2013 20.2.2013 Shri S.K.Patel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on admission. According to the petitioner, respondent no.4 Divisional Forest Officer, Panna, vide order dated 6.9.2010, Annexure P4, had directed respondent no.5 Forest Range Officer, Division Dharampur, District Panna, to conduct the election of President, Gram Van Samiti, Nayagaon, but till this date no election has been held. A representation dated 2.2.2013, Annexure P11, is also said to have been made by some of the villagers to respondent no.4 complaining the non-compliance of his order. However, no receipt of the said representation by the office of respondent no.4 has been filed. Therefore, it is doubtful that such a representation has, in fact, been made. Also under what provision or by which procedure the election of President of Van Samiti should be held is not mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has not averred that he intends to contest the election of President of Van Samiti. The...
Dwarka Prasaad Choure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.9043/2012 20.02.2013 Mr.Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 31.3.2011 as well as the order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively) When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was posted as range assistant, was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.3.2010. Thereafter vide order dated 31.3.2011 penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner and recovery was directed. Subsequently the amount of recovery was reduced from Rs.29,353/- to Rs.6,448/- however, remaining part of the punishment was maintained. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 29.12.2011 before the appellate authority however, the ...
Smt. Komal Devi Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2467/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointment as an Aaganwadi Assistant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 21.01.2013 remanded the matter to District Level Selection Committee to examine the documents of the candidates afresh and to take action in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has been dismissed by the order dated 7.2.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Aaganwadi Assistant and the writ petition be disposed ...
Smt. Sunita Bai Vs. Pancham Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Second Appeal No.129/2013 (Smt. Sunita Bai versus Pancham Singh and otheRs.20.02.2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.24-A/2011 by the Additional Judge to the court of fiRs.Additional District Judge, Balaghat whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.20-A/10 by the second Civil Judge, Class-II, Baihar District Balaghat has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of title and possession in respect of khaSr.No.16/6 area 2.25 acre village Newargaon, Patwari Halka No.43 Tahsil Baihar District Balaghat, Revenue Circle BiRs.Tahsil Baihar District Balaghat has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below have committed perversity in appreciation of the evidence inasmuch as the courts below have ...
Smt. Kashi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :1401. / 2013 Smt. Kashi Bai versus State of MP and ors 20.02.2013. Shri L.M.Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Against the order passed dated 28.9.2012 Annexure P/7, petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the said remedy, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned back to learned counsel for the petitioner, on his filing a photocopy of the same. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Manthan Grameen Avam Samaj Sewa Samiti [Ngo] Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :1354. / 2013 Manthan Grameen Avam Samaj Sewa Samiti versus Union of India and ors 20.02.2013. Shri Anil Lala for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General, for Union of India/respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Earlier in W.P.No.19816/2012, filed by the petitioner, on 30.11.2012, petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take up the matter before respondent No.1. In accordance to the same, petitioner has filed a representation Annexure P/15 dated 7.12.2012 before respondent No.1, the same is pending and a decision is yet to be taken. Considering the same, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.1 before whom the representation Annexure P/15 is pending, is directed to decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid...
Banshilal Khadse Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.2422/2013 W.P.No.18690/2012 20.02.2013 Shri V.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, having retried from the services of Reserve Bank of India has filed this petition calling in question the order passed on 22.10.1990 whereby the petitioner who was Class-IV employee (erstwhile Darban) was appointed in common cadre of Clerk Grade-II in pay scale of Rs.1155-55-1320-75-1545-85-1630-90-1720-95-1815-100- 2015- 115- 2130- 130- 2390- 155- 2545- 175- 3245/- w.e.f.22.10.1990. Grievance raised by the petitioner is in respect of fixation of pay in Class-III Cadre. It is urged that while taking into consideration the substantive pay of the post of pay in class-IV Cadre is Rs.1110/-, the respondents ought have also taken into consideration the special pay. When called upon to demonstrare as to what was the special pay that the petitioner has drawn while working as Darban, no such order has been shown. On the 2 W.P.No.2422/2013 contrary it appears from the order da...
Lalan Kumar Vs. the Chairman (Appellate Authority)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.16155/2012 20.02.2013 Mr.Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file the return. Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in his current pay scale for a period of one year without cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the meeting of D.P.C.is to be held shortly and the case of the petitioner may not be considered in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the case of the petitioner shall be considered, being provided that the petitioner is in the zone of consideration and is otherwise eligible. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, it is dir...
Jahar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.582/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Arun Vishwakarma with Shri Ashish Vishwakarma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner is a life convict. He has admittedly been convicted on two counts under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing two murders and sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment. The sentences of life imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner applied for his pre-mature release from jail on the basis of circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, of the State Government. But the State Government by the impugned order dated 27.8.2012, Annexure P3, has rejected the prayer. It is in this background the petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of order dated 27.8.2012. The circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, deals with pre- mature release of prisoners on the eve of Republic and Independence Days. Its relevant Clause 1(v)(5) reads as under:5. vkthou dkjkokl ls n.MkfnV ,...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »