Skip to content

Madhya Pradesh Court January 2015 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.

Jan 06 2015

Rajendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-06-2015

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. The petitioner asserts that he is a well-known social worker and actively associated with many NGOs fighting for the cause of human dignity, civil liberty and social justice. He has filed this public interest petition for direction to the State Authorities to prevent the environmental noise pollution caused during the festive seasons, religious and social ceremonies spread over the year, by use of various sound amplifiers and other devices besides the noise pollution by factories, trains and aeroplanes. Further direction is sought to prevent other atrocities committed on the society in the name of religious festivals such as (a) traffic hazards by putting Pandals on busy streets (the number proliferating each year) in an indiscriminate manner, (b) theft of electricity with impunity for lighting and decoration of Pandals, resulting in loss to public exchequer and (c) extortion and intimidation of public by unscrupulous elements in the name of donation for the Pa...


Jan 05 2015

Amrita Choudhary Vs. The State of M.P and Others

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-05-2015

1. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 15.5.2014 and consequential order dated 29.5.2014 and the order of removal from service dated 4.6.2014 (Annexure P/11, P/12 and P/13 respectively).. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on contract basis on the post of Task Manager in the year 2007 at Jila Panchayat, Seoni after due selection under the Mid Day Meal Scheme introduced by the State Government. The services of the petitioner were found satisfactory and, therefore, the period of contract of the petitioner was extended continuously. The last extension was to end in the year 2014. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities and though no financial irregularities were alleged against the petitioner, despite filing of the reply to the said show cause notice, the contract period of the petitioner was not extended. The Chief Executive Officer passed the first order on 15 th May, 2014 taking away t...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial