Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Mahendra Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.21557/2012 30/1/2014 : Shri R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Jogelekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Seeking grant of 20 additional marks for having obtained a B.Ed Degree and contending that the additional 20 marks as contemplated under para 1 of the Circular Annexure P/3 dated 8.5.2012 has not been granted to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Khandekar, Learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the mark sheet issued to the petitioner Annexure P/2 which is the result of the test in question, petitioner has failed in the second paper i.e.Section B having obtained only 27 marks out of 100 whereas the minimum pass marks is 30. It is pointed out that petitioner having not qualified in the test concerned, the question of granting 20 additional marks for having additional qualification does not arise. Even though learned counsel for the pe...
Chotu Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.21622/2012 30/1/2014 : Shri R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Jogelekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Seeking grant of 20 additional marks for having obtained a B.Ed Degree and contending that the additional 20 marks as contemplated under para 1 of the Circular Annexure P/3 dated 8.5.2012 has not been granted to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Khandekar, Learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the mark sheet issued to the petitioner Annexure P/2 which is the result of the test in question, petitioner has failed in the second paper i.e.Section B having obtained only 28 marks out of 100 whereas the minimum pass marks is 30. It is pointed out that petitioner having not qualified in the test concerned, the question of granting 20 additional marks for having additional qualification does not arise. Even though learned counsel for the pe...
Bhaurao Sadarang Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.1459/2014 30.01.2014 Shri Shahidullah Baig, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners have sought following reliefs:- "(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pass the order granting benefit to the petitioners in view of order passed in Usha Ranawat's case as also passed in Writ Appeals No.946/2010 and W.A.No.744/2010. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears from the date of initial appointment with interest as petitioners were entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners." It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for benefits of regular pay scale from the initial date of their app...
P.S. Pandhana the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. NitIn Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Criminal Revision No.74/2014 30.01.2014 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. The State has preferred the present revision against the judgment dated 7.8.2013 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Appeal No.101/2013 whereby the respondents were released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The brief facts of the case are that a quarrel took place between the respondents and the victim and in that quarrel some slaps were given to the victim and the respondent Kiran twisted the finger of victim Swapnil and therefore a fracture was caused in the finger. The trial Court convicted the respondents for commission of offence under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced with six months' RI and three months' RI, whereas the appellate Court maintained the conviction of the respondents but in place of inflicting any jail sentence, the respondents were released on probation. After considering t...
Subelal Katre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.254/2014(S) 30.1.2014 Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A., for respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (1) By issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of fundamental rule 22-D and consequential benefits to the petitioner. (2) Any other appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondent be issued in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of this Court W.P.No.20208/2013 (Shri Pal Meshram versus State of M.P.& otheRs.Annexure P-3 and this petition may also be disposed of with similar directions. Shri Dwivedi, learned G.A., submits that he has no objection if the authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in this regard. In view of aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with following dir...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Rajesh Sharma versus Union of India & ORS.Writ Petition No.1413 / 2013 30.1.2014. Petitioner in person. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondents. Claim of the petitioner for appointment to the establishment of the Head of Central Proof was not properly considered, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of petitioner that he had submitted an application and when he sought information under the Right to Information Act, he was informed that no application, submitted by the petitioner, is available. Pointing out that he had submitted the application and by giving proof with regard to the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition. On notice being issued respondents have filed the reply and they say that the application form of the petitioner was received and it was scrutinized by the competent authority, but as the form was not complete it is stated that the claim of petitioner was rejected and he was not permitted to participate in the process of selection. Even t...
Rajendra Kumar Bohare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
1 W.P.No.1590/2014 Rajendra Kumar Bohare State of M.P.& others 30.1.2014 Shri Sanjay Jain, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Dy.A.G.for respondents. Petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- (i) Quash the impugned order dated 04-12-2013 (Annexure P-1) including the Note No.2259 dated 02-11-2013 by the respondent No.2 it has been directed that the hand pump mechanic whose pay has been wrongly fixed, their pay fixation be done in the actual pay scale. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus declaring that petitioner who are working as Hand Pump Mechanic (Contingency Establishment) is entitled for the fixation of their pay scale from the appointment date. As per later dated 02-07-1998 issued by the Department. (iii) That the Respondent No.4 be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner about pay scale without making any hurdle in the light of the Apex Court judgment A.I.R.1987 SC2049Bhagwandas. (iv) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circum...
Samar Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
W.P.No.270/2014(S) 30.1.2014 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A., for respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (1) To direct the respondents to absorb the services of petitioner in Adhyapak Samvarg (As Sahayak Adhyapak) from Shiksha Karmi-III (Guruji) as per the recommendation of Shri D.P.Dubey committee and pay salary as per the recommendation of committee from the date of appointment including salary of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III with all consequential benefits and seniority and other benefit also. (2) To order the respondents to extend the benefit as given in the case of Gopal Chawla and others (Annexure P-2 and P-3).(3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may also be passed together with cost of the petition. In this petition petitioner has prayed that his case is squarely covered by an order of this Court W.P.No.19379/2011 (Ram Chandra Kachhi & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.Annexure P-4 and this petition may also be disposed of with similar directions. Shri Dwive...
Narendra Tiwari Vs. Secretary Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
1 W.P.No.1282/2014 Narendra Tiwari Union of India & others 30.1.2014 Shri Manish Kumar Soni, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Dy.A.G.for respondents. Petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- (i) It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dt. 18.01.2006 (Annexure P/1).by which the services of the petitioner have been allocated to the State of Chhattishgarh. (ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. This allocation order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4659/2006, in which there were some interim ordeRs.Thereafter, aforesaid writ petition was listed for hearing on 1.11.2013, on which date, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner by an order which reads thus:- 1.11.2013...
Panchanan Maiti Vs. Managing Director M.P. State Industrial Developmen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
..... 1 W.P.No.1252 of 14 Panchanan Maiti & ors M.P. S.I.D.C. And ors. 30.01.2014 Shri M.S. Bhatti, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A. for the respondents. Petitioners have sought following reliefs :- 1. To call for the entire records which led to the passing of the resolution dated 6.7.2013 for its kind perusal.2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to continue in service till the age of 60 years.3. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of condition so far as it relates to obtaining of approval of the State Government.4. To restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner and may further restrained from interfering with the service condition of the petitioners. Case of the petitioners is that the respondents No.1 and 2 have passed a resolution to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years vide Annexure P-4 dated 6.7.2013. The matter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »