Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Mukesh Mumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.9495/13 (M.K.Vishwakarma versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned G.A.for the State submits that a similar petition which has been registered as W.P.No.6129/13(S) raising identical issue has already been dismissed by this court on 15.04.2013, copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is produced before this court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned G.A.for the State which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition filed by the petitioner is also dismissed in similar terms and for the same reasons, which may be read as part of this order as stated in W.P.No.6129/13(S) on 15.04.2013. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct/mms...
Mrs. Abhilahsha Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.16160/2012 Abhilasha Yadav vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 28.06.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.5. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities have extended the last date for inviting applications for appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak from 24.8.2012 to 8.9.2012 after publishing the interim merit list on the basis of the applications that were received till the initial cut off date i.e.24.8.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extension of the last cut off date for inviting applications is not permissible as the candidates who have been subsequently qualified would become eligible thus creating a situation where the selection would become an unending process by such extension. It is submitted that such ex...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Kariman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10495/2013 State of M.P. & Ano. vs. Smt. Karima28. 06.2013 Heard Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State. The petitioner/State has filed this petition being aggrieved by award dated 26.4.2012 by which the respondent, who was working as a Gangman and was superannuated on completing 30 years of service, has been reinstated with 50% back wages from the date of the award and has also granted 12% simple interested per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment of 50% back wages. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State that the respondent has rightly been superannuated on her completing 30 years of service in view of the circular of the State Government dated 7/14.12.2001 but the court below has not considered the aforesaid aspect. Having heard the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, it is observed that the issue raised by the State is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court re...
Niranjan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
1 Writ Petition No.9065/2010. 28.6.2013 . None for the Petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for respondent No.3. In compliance of the order dated 21.6.2013, this case was listed yesterday but at the request of some counsel the same was kept as passover. Pursuant to it, it is placed today in the list of not reached case and on taking up the matter no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. On perusing the averments of petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents directing them to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for damages in lieu of demolition of his house by the authorities of such respondents without following the procedure prescribed under the law. In order to decide the question involved in this petition the Court has to consider various facts and same could be considered only after adducing the ev...
Awadhesh Tiwari Vs. Madhyanchal GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10797 / 2013 (Awadhesh Tiwari..versus Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Sagar & anr.) 28-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition against an oral/telephonic communication made by the Regional Manager of the bank/respondent No.1. to the petitioner directing him to report at Ashok Nagar Branch of the respondent/bank as he has been transferred from Sidhi to Ashok Nagar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication is in violation of the transfer policy. The petitioner claims parity with the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9497/2013(S).dated 3-6-2013 and W.P.No.10650/2013 dated 24-6-2013 whereby the respondent/authorities have been directed to decide the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer within six weeks and till then the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance so far as it relates to the petitioner...
Manohar Lal Soni Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10836 / 2013 (Manohar Lal Soni ..versus State of M.P.& others.) 28-06-2013 Heard Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. From a perusal of the petition it is seen that in an identical petition i.e.W.P.No.10060/2013(s) this Court by order dated 10-6-2013 has held that the representation of the petitioner was decided by the concerned authority by order dated 23-5-2013 mechanically and the impugned order is not a speaking order. This Court with the aforesaid observation has disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order in view of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2264/2013 decided on 15-2-2013 and till then the interim arrangement made by this Court in W.P.No.2264/2013 by order dated 15-2-2013 was directed to continue to remain in operation. In view of the aforesaid order dated 10-6-2013 passed by this court in W.P.No.10060...
Kumar Shanu Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10235/13 (Kumar Shanu Thakur and others versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned G.A.for the State submits that a similar petition which has been registered as W.P.No.6129/13(S) raising identical issue has already been dismissed by this court on 15.04.2013, copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is produced before this court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned G.A.for the State which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.the present petition filed by the petitioners is also dismissed in similar terms and for the same reasons, which may be read as part of this order as stated in W.P.No.6129/13(S) on 15.04.2013. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct/mms...
Ramendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
R.P.No.433/13 28/06/13 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we see no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review/recall of the order passed. However, in case, the statutory provisions permit the applicant to approach the forest authorities and if the forest authorities are empowered to consider the claim of the applicant, applicant has liberty under law to proceed in the matter. With the aforesaid observation, finding no case made out for review/recall of the order passed, the application is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge Vy/-...
Anoop Singh Vs. Madhyanchal GramIn Bak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10788 / 2013 (Anoop Singh..versus Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Sagar & anr.) 28-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition against an oral/telephonic communication made by the Regional Manager of the bank/respondent No.1. to the petitioner directing him to report at Tikamgarh Branch of the respondent/bank as he has been transferred from Sidhi to Tikamgarh. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication is in violation of the transfer policy. The petitioner claims parity with the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9497/2013(S).dated 3-6-2013 and W.P.No.10650/2013 dated 24-6-2013 whereby the respondent/authorities have been directed to decide the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer within six weeks and till then the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance so far as it relates to the petitioner. In the...
D.K.Basal Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.S No.254/2004 D. K. Basal vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 28.06.2013 Shri R.K.Verma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Heard. Though the petitioner has filed this petition claiming several reliefs, it is however stated that during the pendency of this petition the reliefs claimed by the petitioner have been granted to him by the respondent no.3 and others and the petitioner has also been fixed in the scale of Rs.3500-5200 by order dated 24.11.2005. It is, however, stated that pursuant to the aforesaid refixation the respondent authorities have not revised and redetermined the petitioner's pension and gratuity. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that they have already forwarded the papers regarding refixation and redetermination of pension to respondent no.2 and the matter is pending decision. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the aforesai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »