Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Suresh Chandra Gangrade (Retd Office Assistant Gr-iii, Chhaigaon Makha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Conc. No.1707 / 2012 (Suresh Chandra Gangrade v. Shri D.P.Ahuja & otheRs.14-05-2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this application alleging disobedience and contempt of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10957/2012(s).dated 27-7-2012. The respondents have filed a return and stated that as the issue regarding absorption of the petitioner and other employees of the society is pending adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1676/2009 in which an interim order has been passed staying the proceedings and in such circumstances the respondents are unable to take any final decision in the matter. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the pendency of W.P.No.1676/2009 before the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The application for contempt filed by the petitioner being meritless is...
Narendra Kumar Khatik Vs. Ajit Keshari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
C.P.No.1905/12 14.05.2013 Shri S.D.Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri K.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This contempt petition has been filed by the applicants alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this court on 09.08.2012 in W.P.No.12058/12. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that on 24.2.2012 the petitioners have produced a Patta before the authority which was thereafter considered and orders thereon were passed, therefore, the order passed by this court has been complied with. From a perusal of the order passed by the respondents Annexure R/1, I am of the considered opinion that no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out. The application being meritless is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Smt. Shakuntala Verma Vs. B.R.Naidu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Conc. No.1715 / 2012 (Smt. Shakuntala Verma v. B.R.Naidu & otheRs.14-05-2013 Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anshul Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this application alleging disobedience and contempt of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5774/2006(s).dated 10-10-2011. The respondents have filed a return and stated that they have examined the case of the petitioner and have passed the dated 11-7-2012 (Annexure R-2).In view of the aforesaid I do not find any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The application for contempt filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed and the rule nisi issued against the respondents stands discharged. ( R.S.Jha ) Judge mct...
R.K. Patkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Writ Petition No.11670/2012 (S) (R.K.Patkar ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.14-05-2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal. Learned G.A.for the State/respondents. I.A.No.13439/2012 filed by the petitioner is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendments in Court itself. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Kuwan to Umariapan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer has been passed by the respondent No.3-Divisional Forest Officer. It is further submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer has no authority to shift the petitioner even within the forest division. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the the orders dated 22.3.2010 and 7.4.2010 ...
Mahila Teerath Swa-sahayata Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
W.P.No.3246/2008 14.05.2013 None for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that this matter relates to supply of nutritious food, for which the petitioner was earlier granted contract, but because of certain reasons, the same was cancelled vide order dated 22.10.2007. It is submitted by him that by efflux of time this petition has become infructuous. In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the State, this petition is disposed of as rendered infructuous. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice Judge psm...
R.V.Joshi Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
R.V.Joshi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :3558. / 2009 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Considering the fact that not the petitioner is retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the impugned order sending the petitioner on deputation was stayed by this Court on 22.4.2009, treating the petitioner to have been retired from the post which he was holding at the time of filing of writ petition all his post retiral benefit be settled. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Rajesh Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Rajesh Rajak versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :5334. / 2009 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. This petition is filed challenging the deputation ordered in the year 2009, with the passage of time, the petition is rendered infructuous, as no stay was granted and the petitioner would have been joined on the post, where he was sent on transfer. However, in case petitioner has any grievance in the matter still subsisting, he is granted liberty to represent the competent authority and the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the matter in accordance to law. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Rajnikant Dash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Rajnikant Dash versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :11244. / 2008 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In view of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2776/2009(s) (S.S.Mishra & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Ors.) decided on 26.4.2011, this petition is also allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is quashed and the State Government is directed to take action in accordance to directions already issued in para 11 of the order passed by this Court on 26.4.2011 in W.P.No.2776/2009(s) and other cases. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Trayambak Mani Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Trayambak Mani Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :9099. / 2008 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Considering the fact that the order of repatriation of petitioner passed on 24.7.2008 vide Annexure P-1 has already been stayed by this Court on 12.8.2008 and has not been given effect to for all this period. For the present, this petition is allowed, order impugned Annexure P-1 dated 24.7.2008 is quashed and liberty is granted to the respondents to take action afresh in accordance to law. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Shobhanakar Deb Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Shobhanakar Deb versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :6964. / 2008 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Considering the fact that the position not with regard to declaring the petitioner surplus in department in question have been changed during the period of 5 yeaRs.When the petition was pending, many persons have retired and vacancy created and as petitioner is granted protection vide order dated 17.6.2008, respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner under changed circumstances and a decision taken within a period of 3 months. However, the protection granted by this Court on 17.6.2008 shall continue to remain in operation till a decision is not taken on the same. It is pointed out by Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel that in case any other person has been granted benefit, taking note of the same, benefit be granted to the petitioner. With the aforesaid the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »