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.
Smt. Pushpa Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17788/2012 (Smt. Pushpa Soni versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.10.2012 Heard Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities in respect of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Apparently the dispute is between the petitioner and her husband in which the petitioner is claiming certain amount. In the circumstances, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to take up the proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court . In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proc...
Yadura PaThe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17836/20129. 10.2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while submitting the online form, the processor has committed a mistake in printing the date of birth of the petitioner. This fact was brought to the notice of concerning authority immediately by the petitioner and he was allowed to take part in written examination for selection. Since not the petitioner has qualified the examination, online verification of his document is not being done only because there is a mistake in mentioning the year of birth. It is contended that though representations in this respect have been made and there are instructions issued by the competent authority, yet the mistake is not being rectified and, therefore, online verification is not possible. In such circumstances, the Government has issued circular dated 10.09.2012 directing th...
Vikash JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17363/2012 (Vikash Jain versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/authorities are not taking any action against the respondents No.3 to 8 who are revenue officers posted in Umariya and with whose knowledge and involvement nearly 400 acres of land recorded as forest was sold by some persons after forging the revenue records. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a complaint filed by the petitioner, who was the purchaser of 80 acres of land of village Dogritola Tahsil Manpur District Umariya, an enquiry was conducted by a team of seven revenue officers under the supervision of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manpur who has submitted a report to the effect that about 400 acres of land recorded as forest has been sold after forging the revenue records with the connivance of several ...
Mohd.Asif Vs. Hazi Mohammad Nayeem and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
(1) M.A. No.54/2003 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.54 / 2003 Appellant Mohammad Asif, S/o. Shri Sheikh Nawab, R/o. Bhantalaiya, Police Station Hanumantal, Jabalpur (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Hazi Mohammad Nayeem Kotwali Bazar, Jabalpur.2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jabalpur (M.P.) 3. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Jabalpur (M.P.) ________________________________________________________ Shri Ravish Deolia, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent no.1. Shri Pranay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 29th day of October, 2012) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short W.C. Act.) has been filed on behalf of the appellant, whereby his application under Section 10 of W.C. Act has been dismissed. (2) M.A. No.54/2003 2. The facts of the case and pleadings ...
Mahesh Kumar Choubey Vs. Shri S.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 Conc. No.1722/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court on 6.8.2012 in W.P.No.10500/2012 (s) passed an innocuous order directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and take a decision, it is not indicated in the contempt application that a decision has been taken and on the ground that petitioner has not completed 10 years of service his claim is rejected. Inter alia contending that the reasons assigned for rejection of his claim is not correct and without properly considering his case as per Circulars of the State Government, his claim has been rejected, petitioner has again filed contempt application. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has worked for 16 years and therefore, rejection of his claim is not proper. This is a contempt application and not a fresh petition. In the original writ petition no direction was issued. The only direction was that the case of the ...
Sharda Mahila Swasahayata Samooh Mahugarh Vs. Sub Division Officer (Re ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.18197/2012 Sarda Mahila Swasahayata Samooh vs.S.D. O Sidhi & ORS.29.10.2012 Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.9.2012 passed by respondent no.1 S.D.O Gopadbanas and Sihawal, District Sidhi and the consequent order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the work of supply of mid-day meal awarded to the petitioner for Primary and Middle School Khaira and Mahugarh has been taken away from the petitioner and is sought to be given to respondent no.3. The aforesaid grievance of the petitioner requires adjudication of several disputed question of facts and, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up proceedings before the Collector, Sidhi for mitigation of his grievance in accordance with the circu...
Ramfal Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Ramfal Sharma & Anr. versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17795/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are working in the Police Department. A departmental action was taken against them and they were imposed with punishment of stoppage of one increment. Petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed, thereafter, they preferred a mercy appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Sagar Zone. The mercy appeal has been returned back to the petitioners vide Annexure-P1 dated 5.9.2012 with an endorsement that the mercy appeal cannot be decided, as the same is to be filed before the Director General of Police. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the following directions : In case, petitioners prefer a mercy appeal/ second appeal and raise grounds as indicated by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority shall decide it by a speaking order, if required, after granting opportunity of hear...
Vivek Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Vivek Kumar Tiwari versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17908/2012 29/10/2012 Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order passed appointing Respondent No.6 as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak. It has been consistently held by this Court that orders passed in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to Statutory Appeal and Revision Rules framed under Section 95 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Awam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court is unsustainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available under law, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Dr. L.N. Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.18093/20129. 10.2012 Shri R.S.Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee, returnable within four weeks. Keeping in view the order dated 14.10.2011 passed in W.P.No.17373/2011(S) and finding claim of the petitioner to be at par with the same, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner work till he attains the age of 65 years and the salary to the petitioner shall be paid by the Management of the Institution and the State Government shall not be burdened with payment of salary. List for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.17373/2011(S) immediately after four weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
YashIn Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17758/2012 (Yasheen Khan versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.10.2012 Heard Shri Arun Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direc...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »