Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Smt. Santosh Rajput Vs. Principal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Writ Petition No.13694/2013 (Smt. Santosh Rajput .Vs..The Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Bhopal & otheRs.26-08-2013 Heard Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 4-7-2013 passed by the respondent No.4, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4523/2013, dated 25-3-2013, by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization had been directed to be considered and decided by the respondent/authorities. By the impugned order the claim of the petitioner for regularization. has been rejected It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been performing the work of cleaning etc.in the respondent No.4/College and in such circumstances she is entitled for regularization of her services since 1-11-2000 as has been done by the respondents in the similarly situated cases of other persons. Having heard the learned co...
Vazeer Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.A.No.781/2013 (Vazeer Khan and another versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 26.8.2013 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. The learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that certain posts of peon are lying vacant with the respondents and the appellants may be permitted to move applications to the respondents for consideration of their regularisation in accordance with law. To this Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate submits that incidentally the case of the appellants has been turned down vide Annexure-P/1, dated 27-4-2013 and there is no question for reconsideration of the case of the appellants for regularisation. From perusal of the advertisement, Annexure-P/11, we find that certain posts have been advertised by the respondents and if the appellants are entitled for the post under the advertisement, they may move applications in this regard. If such applications are made by...
Naseem Bani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13710 / 2013 (Naseem Bano ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.26-08-2013 Heard Shri Subodh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by ignorance of her claim for appointment on the post of Prerak (Instigator) by the respondent/authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed a representation (Annexure P-8) before the Collector, Chhindwara, for mitigation of her grievance on 26-2-2012 which has not been considered and decided by the aforesaid authority till today. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition to the Collector, Chhindwara (Respondent No.3).within a week of obtaining the same, he shall consider and decide the ...
Smt. Chandra Kanta Sharma Vs. Triloki Nath Kakkad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P. No.13625 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Writ Petition No.13625 of 2013 PETITIONER: SMT CHANDRA KANTA SHARMA, Wife of Late Shri Krishna Das Sharma resident of 25/7 Cantonment, Near Shivaji Ground Sadar, Jabalpur M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS:1. TRILOKI NATH KAKKAD son of Late Shri Baburam Kakkad, resident of house No.38 Kingsway Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. SUBHASH JAISWAL, son of Tarachandra Jaiswal, resident of House No.267, Sadar Bazar Jabalpur M.P. ______________________________________________________ Shri Girish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri D.K.Dixit, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for the first intervener/objector on basis of I.A. 11658/2013. Shri Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the for the second intervener/ objector on the basis of I.A. No.11936/2013. W.P. No.13625 of 2013 ORDER (26.08.2013) By this petition und...
Rahana Bano Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 WRIT PETITION NO.14495/2013 26/08/2013 Shri Grishm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and 3 on advance notice. Grievance put forth by the petitioneRs.of whom petitioner No.1 is Corporator and other respondents are prospective contestants in the ensuing election of Municipal Council, Anuppur, is against the reservation of wards, vide Annexure-P/1 which records the proceedings of 26.04.2013. As apparent from the pleadings that there are fifteen wards in Municipal Council, Anuppur. The Last election was held in the year 2008. The next election is scheduled in the year 2013 of fifteen wards, one ward is reserved for Scheduled Caste, two wards for Scheduled Tribe, four wards for Other Backwards Class and eight wards are unreserved. Out of these fifteen, seven wards are reserved in favour of women i.e.one in favour of Scheduled Tribe, two in favour of Other Backward Class and four are unreserved. The grievance raised by...
Sukhlal Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14505/20126. 08.2013 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions me...
Yogendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13633/2013 (Yogendra Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.26.08.2013 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.06.2013 by which the application filed by the petitioner in the case pending before the Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa, under section 11 of the C.P.C.has been rejected. Admittedly the matter is pending final adjudication before the authority. That apart, there is a remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order before the State Government under the provisions of M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. As the petitioner has alternative efficacious statutory remedy and the issue raised by the petitioner requires adjudication on the disputed questions of facts, I find no reason to entertain the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative re...
Sunil Patil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14247/20126. 08.2013 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Moh...
Rajmani Vs. Smt. Basanti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Second Appeal No.821/2012 26.08.2013 MRS.Janhavi Pandit, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr.Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff with regard to declaration of title, even when the relief of declaration of title in respect of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff was deleted in compliance of order of the trial Court dated 23.1.2006 ?. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of this appeal on merit along with the aforesaid substantial question of law to respondents. Also heard on I.A.No.8590/2012. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of aforesaid I.A.to the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in p...
Jai Prakash Shrivastava Vs. Samal Chakravarti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 C.R. No.135 o26. 8.2013 Shri Chandrahas Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Shailendra Verma counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Ashok Chourasia, GA for respondent No.2. In view of listing the matter, IA No.9224/13 an application for early hearing does not require further consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. This case is listed today for hearing on IA No.3350/13 applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing this revision as the same is filed barred by 152 days, for the reasons stated in it, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay, hence by allowing the IA, the aforesaid delay is hereby condoned. At the request of applicant's counsel, he is heard on the question of admission. ORDER (oral) The applicant/ defendant has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.12 passed by the II civil Judge-II, Singrouli, headquarter at Baidhan in C.S.No.1-A/10 whereby his application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »