Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Shyama Charan Jyotishi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16323/2012 03.10.2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate 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 ...
Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16321/2012 03.10.2012: Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner has 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 mentioned ...
Lattu @ Mazid Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Cr. A. No.1592/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1592/2012 Lattu @ Mazid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.K. Pathak, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 3rd day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.4.2012 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Satna in Special Case No.29/10, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced for four years' R.I. with...
Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.6201/2008 03.10.2012 Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The return filed by the respondents indicates that the claim for regularization of only those Sub Engineers who were appointed prior to 30.03.1986 was to be considered. It is their contention that since the post was not released by the Board concerned subsequently regularization of the petitioner was not permissible. By placing documents on record along with rejoinder, the petitioner has indicated that similarly situated persons were granted benefit but the same has been denied to him. Looking to the aforesaid, let the rejoinder be examined by the respondents and an appropriate additional return be filed indicating under what circumstances, similarly situated persons were extended the benefit of regularization, which has been denied to the petitioner. List the petition immediately after three weeks on filing of the additional return. (K.K.Tri...
Yagyadutt Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11031/2012 (Yagyadutt Sharma versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 03.10.2012 Heard Shri Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the police authorities to arrest the persons who have been made accused in Crime No.88/12, registered at Police Station, Satna for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the I.P.C.and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The aforesaid direction has been sought by the petitioner without impleading the persons against whom directions have been sought in the petition. That apart, the complaint of the petitioner has been registered by the police and the matter is under investigation and therefore, it goes without saying that the police shall take action in the matter in accordance with law, to strengthen and affirm the faith and confidence of the public in the police administration and therefore, I do not find any reason to issue...
Tirath Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15681/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. 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 mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2...
Tej Pratap Yadav Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Tej Pratap Yadav versus Union of India and otheRs.03.10.2012. Shri Hakim Khan for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh for the respondents. Petitioner was a candidate, who had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Forces (hereinafter referred to as CISF).Even though a provisional appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 27.3.2012, but it seems that when a re- examination of petitioners physical standards were conducted by a Board of Medical OfficeRs.the petitioner was found to be unfit and, therefore, appointment was not granted to the petitioner. Challenging the action of the respondents in not granting appointment to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. Notices were issued to the respondents and Shri Vikram Singh, appearing for the respondents, was directed to get the petitioner examined again by a duly constituted Medical Board and a report submitted to this Court. In pursuance to the same Shri Vikram Singh has produced a r...
M/S Shear Genius Academy and Services Th:anurag Gupta Vs. the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11229/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Dr.Habib Ahmad Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16317 of 2012 03.10.2012: Shri Ajay Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondentsState. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9291/2005 (s) on 14.11.2007, awarding 8 percent interest from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the order to the respondent no.2 on retiral dues, no interest has been calculated and paid to the petitioner. It is contended that when the notice was issued on 24.02.2009 the calculation of the interest was done by the petitioner and an amount of Rs.3,43,921/ was claimed as interest. However, only this much is intimated to the petitioner that the claim with respect to payment of interest is pending consideration as the instructions have not been received from the Higher Authorities. There is nothing on re...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. O.P. Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Cr.R No. 1819/2009 3.10.2012 Shri Aditya Adhikari, Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequent to impugned order dated 15.5.2008 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior in SPL ST 0/08 and in furtherance to liberty granted as per paragraph 9 of the impugned order (stipulating 9. In the light of the above, the challan being presented against public servants under the above sections of the Act without sanction is not appropriate. Considering the grave nature of allegations against the accused, the Challan be returned to the Special Police Establishment to proceed without delay and comply with the spirit of the legislation as envisaged under Section 19 of the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- Next ›
- Last »