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.
O.P. Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17905/20130. 10.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notices to the respondents. Shri Brajendra Mishra, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.4 and accepts notice of the writ petition for respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay the process fee for issuance of notice of the writ petition to respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5 within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially taken on deputation to work on the post of Block Academic Coordinator but looking to the fact that he was holder of Degree in Civil Engineering, a decision was taken by the respondents and the petitioner was taken to work against the post of Sub Engineer. Subsequently, the petitioner was given the posting as Assistant Engineer and he is no longer working on the post of Block Academ...
Rajesh Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.16604 o30. 10.2012 Shri K.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent nos.1 to 4, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without challenging any order of any authority for issuing appropriate writ to quash the Suo moto Revision No.92/ Suo moto/2004-05 pending in the Court of Collector, District Umariya. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel that when the alternate remedy to file the revision against initiation of the impugned suo moto revision is available to the petitioner under Section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code 1959 before the superior authority, i.e.Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, then how this petition could be entertained by this Court, on which instead to argue further on admission the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file revision/...
Dr.Ramesh Babulal Baheti Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Indutrial Developmen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.10703/2011 Dr. Ramesh Babulal Baheti, aged about 65 years, son of Babulal Baheti, Resident of 22, Old Palasia, Indore Petitioner vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, through OIC, Plot No.192, Zone I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and M.Cr.C. No.10832/2011 Dr. Ramesh Babulal Baheti, aged about 65 years, son of Babulal Baheti, Resident of 22, Old Palasia, Indore Petitioner vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, through OIC, Plot No.192, Zone I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Brian DSilva, Senior Counsel with Shri Ishan Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Advocates for the respondent. ORDER Date of ...
Shiv Ram Vs. Kailash Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.16879/2012 30.10.2012. Shri Anuvaed Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant No.3 has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the impugned order dated 28.7.201 (Ann. P.2) passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Lakhnadaun whereby the compromise filed by the respondent No.1 to 6/ the plaintiffs and respondent No.29 and 30 has been allowed and accordingly the compromise decree was passed. It is noted that before allowing the compromise the respondent No.1 to 6/ the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit against the petitioner/ defendant No.3 and respondent No.7 to 27 who were impleaded in the suit as defendants. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the application (Ann. P.4).proceeding dated 28.7.2012 (Ann. P.5) and impugned decree (Ann. P.6) argued that without considering his right the impugned compromise between respondent No.1 to 6 and 29, 30...
Napier Town Jan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Shri Gulshan Bamra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Napier Town Jan Kalyan Samiti versus Gulshan BaMr.& Anr. Con.C.No.1384/2012 30/10/2012 Ms.Pushpanjaly Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the non-applicants. I.A.No.12362/2012 has been filed for impleading three more non-applicants, they are necessary parties and the order passed in the writ petition can be fully given effect to only if the proposed non- applicants are noticed. In view of the above, this application is allowed. Necessary corrections be made in the cause title and, thereafter, notices be issued to the newly added Non-applicant Nos.3, 4 and 5 on the payment of P.F within one week. Notice be made returnable by 22nd of November, 2012. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Maya Shankar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Writ Petition No.17011/12. 30.10.2012 Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the State-respondent no.1 & 2 on advance copy. The petitioners counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge Amarpatan in Misc. Civil Appeal No.22/12, affirming the order dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure-P-2) passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II Amarpatan in Civil Original Suit No.70-A/11 whereby, his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the impugned ordeRs.The petitioner-herein filed the impugned suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and also for declaring the order dated 22.7.2010 passed by Tahsildar in revenue case...
Parasram Dubey Vs. Santosh Kumar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(1) F.A. No.94/1998 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.94//1998 Appellant Parasram Dubey, S/o. Guruprasad Plaintiff alias Gola Maharaj, R/o. Nehru Ward (Bargawan), Katni, Tehsil Katni District Jabalpur. Vs. Respondents 1. Santosh Kumar, S/o. Radhika Defendants Prasad Paroha, Occupation Service 2. Radhika Prasad, S/o. Swamidin Paroha, Occupation Business Both resident of Village Amkuhi, Tehsil Mudwara, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ______________________________________________ Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for respondents. ______________________________________________ Date of hearing :13. 9/2012 Date of judgment :30. 10/2012 JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 30th day of October, 2012) (2) F.A. No.94/1998 The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of S.A. No.97/2001 as there is an order dated 11.09.2012 in this appeal as well as in connected S.A. No.97/200...
Phool Singh Vs. Chief Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.9293 o30. 10.2012 Shri B.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ to quash the order dated 13.6.2005, (Ann. P-1) passed by the authorizes officer and Sub Divisional Officer of Forests (General).Sehora whereby the disputed vehicles of the petitioners seized under some Forests offence has been confiscated. Pursuant to it, prayer for quashment of the order dated 7.2.2006 (Ann. P-2) passed by the appellate authority, Conservator of Forests affirming the aforesaid order Annexure P-1 and of order dated 6.7.06 (Ann. P-3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, affirming the aforesaid order of the appellate authority (Ann. P-2) is also made. Besides the aforesaid, on the strength of some judgment of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class by which the a...
M.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sang Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.18771/2011 30.10.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General with Shri S.S.Bisen, Govt.Adv.for the respondents. In pursuance to the order passed on the last date the Commissioner, Public Instructions is present along with the learned Advocate General Shri R.D.Jain and Shri S.S.Bisen, Govt. Advocate. It is stated by Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General that efforts are being made for settling the claims of the petitioners and he prays for some time. List the matter on 22.11.2012 awaiting response from the respondents. For the present personal appearance of Commissioner is dispensed with. However, senior representative on his behalf shall remain present at the time of hearing. c.c.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Gopal Vs. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.16918/2012 30.10.2012. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 13.9.2012 (Ann. P.6) passed by the Board of Revenue, State of Madhya Pradesh in revenue Revision No.916/PBR/2012 affirming the the order passed by the Collector, Burhanpur in Revision No.10/11-12, whereby dismissing their revision, the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar Khaknar in Revenue Case No.6-A-6/2011-12 dismissing their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the aforesaid revenue case filed by respondent No.4 to 11 under section 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has been affirmed. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner counsel whether without recording the evidence by the Naib Tahsildar in the impugned matter the factual matrix stated in the impugned application of Order 7 ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »