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.
Dev Baldev Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.2422/2013 W.P.No.2422/2013 20.02.2013 Shri A.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 22.12.2012 and 28.01.2013 are being assailed vide this petition. Vide order dated 22.12.2012 Human Rights Commission in a proceeding initiated under Chapter 4 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 held the petitioner guilty of violating of Human Rights of Sarvashri Lalle, Jamna, Ramnarayan, Gauri, Tulsi and Kishore of being unnecessary apprehended in a lock up and accordingly recommended payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- each whereas by order dated 28.01.2003 the recommendations of Human Rights Commission has been implemented and a recovery of Rs.20,000/- each has been effected from the petitioner. The proceedings before Human Rights Commission has its genesis in the complaints lodged 2 W.P.No.2422/2013 by the complainants regarding the incident dated 14.03.2010, whereon it was alleged that, the complainants were wrongly apprehended by the petitioners and were be...
Santosh Pandey Vs. Shri N. B. S. Rajpoot
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Santosh Pandey versus Shri N.B.S.Rajpoot Conc. No.1549 20. 2.2013: Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ishant Mehra, learned counsel for respondent. Inter alia contending that certain directions were issued by this Court on 3.5.2010 in W.P.No.15720/2007 (s) has not been complied with, this contempt application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that this Court only directed the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization in accordance to law laid down in the case Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.and the circulars issued by the State Government. not from the return filed by respondents and the order Annexure R-1 it is seen that petitioner's case has been considered and in the list of daily-wages employees his name appears at Sr.No.6 and as per availability of vacancy it is indicated that his case would be considered. O...
Gorakhnath Machhua Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Gorakhnath Machhua Samooh versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.Writ Petition No.8955 20. 2.2013: Shri Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Challenging concurrent orders passed by the appellate court and the trial court in the matter of rejecting application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 filed by the petitioner this writ petition has been filed. An advertisement was issued by the Municipal Corporation Khandwa with regard to allotment of Fishing in pond in question. It seems that when the allotment is proposed to be given to respondent No.5, the suit in question was filed, which is pending before trial court. In the an application for temporary injunction was filed and the said application for temporary injunction having being rejected by the trial court and subsequently by the appellate court, this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of ...
Jagan Nath Prasad Patel Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Conc Case No :365. / 2013 Jagan Nath Prasad Patel versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 20.02.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA for the respondents. The petitioner herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the petitioner was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner. not the grievance of the petitioner is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the accepta...
Ganga Singh Patta Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.2458/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 22.1.2013 Annexure P/11 passed by respondent No.2 imposing a penalty of Rs.60,000/- on the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was granted a lease for establishment of a stone crusher. The Mining Inspector inspected the area of the petitioner on 10.1.2013 and found that in breach of the condition stipulated under Rule 30 of the M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, 1996 activities were being carried out. Based on the report, impugned action is taken after issuing a show cause notice and challenging the same petitioner has directly filed this writ petition. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that quarry lease has been granted to the petitioner under Rule 30 of the M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, 1996 and as petitioner has violated the grant made action has been...
Pushpendra Purbaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.13460/2012 20.02.2013 Mr.S.R.Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents for appointment of the petitioners on the post of Medical Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were selected for the post of Medical Officer on contract basis. However, the appointment orders were not issued to them on the ground that the petitioners did not hold the M.B.B.S.degree. It is further submitted that still the posts of 'Medial Officer' are lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they be granted liberty to submit a representation and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioneRs.On the other hand learned Government Advocate submits ...
Gend Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.2689/2013 (Gend Singh Maravi versus State of MP and otheRs.20.02.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the respondents No.1 to 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.07.2012 by which the petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat Khajarwara to Gram Panchayat Dandbichhiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 was posted in place of the petitioner. The respondent No.5 filed a writ petition registered as W.P.No.16328/12 which was disposed o f vide order dated 3.10.2012 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the respondent No.5. Thereupon, the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat vide order dated 16.10.2012 has cancelled the order of transfer of respondent No.5 and has directed the respondent No.5 to work as P...
Smt. Pramod Kumari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2643/2013 20.02.2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to cure the default during couRs.of the day. On payment of process fees by registered AD within one week, issue notice to the respondents. Notice be made returnable within a period of three weeks. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General waives notice on behalf of the respondents-State. In the meanwhile, it is directed that there shall be ad- interim stay in the impugned order, dated 8-2-2013 (Annexure-P/1) regarding election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Badagaon, District Chhatarpur. C.c.as per rules in couRs.of the day. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge ac....
Shashikant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2305/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 21.01.2013, by which his services have been terminated from the post of Team Learder without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of the said enquiry, the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner has been passed. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. It is aslo submitted with regard to his grievances that the petitioner has submitted a representation contained in Annexure P/10. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petiti...
Vinod Kuamr Singh Vs. Ramadhar Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.20525/2012 20.2.2013 Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Atul Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Court below rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for getting certain signature in a document examined by handwriting expert. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction with regard to land bearing KhaSr.No.71, 72, 73 and 78, total area 9.52 hectare situated in village Rajgarh, Tahsil Churhat, District Sidhi. Suit has been filed for declaration of sale deed dated 13.3.2008 and 19.5.2008 as null and void. In the said suit a document Annexure P/1 said to be a mortgage deed has been filed and as defendant respondent has denied the signature in the said document, application in question was filed. Learned Court has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the document i...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »