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.
Dileep Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.17408 / 2012 (Dileep Singh...Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.16-10-2012 Heard Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by him against the respondent No.5 in respect of the incident of death of the petitioner's daughter. It is submitted that though the police authorities have registered a Marg at Police Chowki, Koh-e- Fiza, District Bhopal, but no further action has been taken in the matter. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and Raisen, to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the respondent/authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today be served upon the concerned authority by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not i...
Ravi Gontia Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(1) Cr.A.No.2094/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K.Kaushal CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2094/2003 Ravi Gontia Son of Pooran Lal Gontia, aged about 29 years, R/o New Awas Colony, Amir Ganj, P.S.Madhav Nagar, Katni, District-Katni. .....Appellant -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S.Madhav Nagar, Katni. .....Respondent ---------------------------------------------------- For the appellant : Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey,Panel Lawyer. ---------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:09. 10/2012 Date of Judgment:16. 10/2012 ********** JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.10.2002 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.105/2001 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-. In defaul...
Ram Sajivan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ram Sajivan versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17341 16. 10.2012: Smt. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner is Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another. It is stated that nobody has been posted in place of petitioner and pointing out various personal inconveniences merely due to education of petitioner's children studying in Class 8 th , 11 th and 12 th petitioner has challenged the order of transfer. Keeping in view the aforesaid petitioner may file the representation within one week and same shall be considered and decided within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Ram Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ram Prakash versus State & ORS.R.P.No.775/2012 16/10/2012 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the order passed on 14.9.2012 in W.P.No.15254/2012 with regard to consideration of the representation of the applicant and maintenance of status-quo shall be complied with by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur and not by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar as is directed in the order passed on 14.9.2012 in W.P.No.15254/2012. With the aforesaid modification to the order passed on 14.9.2012 in W.P.No.15254/2012, this application is disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
D.N. Sohgaura Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
D.N.Sohgaura versus State of MP and another. 16.10.2012. Shri S.D.Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Soil Conservation Survey Officer in the office of Assistant Soil Conservation, Sub-Division Rewa and by the impugned order-dated 1.10.2012 Annexure P/1, petitioner has been transferred from District Rewa to District Anuppur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioners wife is working in Bansagar Project as Assistant Grade I and if the petitioner is transferred, the husband and wife will be separated. That apart, pointing out education of petitioners son in Rewa, challenge is made to the impugned order of transfer. Grounds raised for assailing the order of transfer are merely violation of the transfer policy and on such consideration judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court...
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari versus State of MP and others 16.10.2012. Shri Awadesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Agor Kari, District Tikamgarh and has been transferred to Government Primary School, Baheriyan Khirak in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that it is contrary to the transfer policy and if the transfer is given effect to the student teacher ratio would be adversely affected and, therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. The aforesaid grounds are to be considered by the competent authority and a decision taken. Accordingly, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority of the department is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not ...
Smt. Hanso Bai Koodey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.57/2012 (Smt. Hanso Bai versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012 Head Shri P.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State and Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2011 by which the election tribunal has passed an order for recount of votes relating to the election of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Piparbani Tahsil Kurai, District Seoni. The only ground raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order is that the election tribunal has ordered recount totally ignoring the provisions of rule 80 of the M.P.Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 which provides that a person aggrieved by the result of election must immediately file an application seeking recount and on the failure of filing such an application under rule 80 of the Rules, no relief for recount by the election tribunal can be granted...
Mukesh JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P.No.12135 o16. 10.2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Brijesh Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for respondent No.1,3 and 4. Shri Anshuman Singh, standing counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.5 although represented through duly engaged counsel. Heard on IA No.11460/12, petitioners application for taking the annexed document on record. For the reasons stated in such IA, without expressing any opinion on merits of such documents, by allowing the IA, the same are taken on record. The petitioners/bus operators have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to permit them to ply their vehicles from the Pt. Dwarika Prasad Mishra Bus Stand Jabalpur. In additional it, the prayer for appropriate direction to restrain the respondents to force them to ply their buses from Medical College Jabalpur is made. With the aforesaid main ...
Anand Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Anand Bahadur Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade Grade II in the office of District Education Officer, Sidhi. Petitioner was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Dhumma in the same District vide order-dated 15.7.2012 Annexure P/1. Challenging to the said transfer order petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.12315/2012 and this Court decided the said petition vide order-dated 22.9.2012. Even though it is stated by the petitioner that the said order is filed as Annexure P/2, but the same is not available on record. Annexure P/2 is some other order. Be it as it may be, according to the petitioner the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that the representation has been considered and...
Suresh Meerchandani Vs. Chandra Prakash Tirthani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 M.C.C.No.592 o16. 10.2012 Shri Shaildenra Dwivedi, counsel for the applicant. Heard. This petition is preferred for restoration of W.P No.2750/09 which has been dismissed on account of non-appearance of the petitioner as well as his counsel vide order dated 4.4.12. It is noted that earlier the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.8.09. Subsequently, considering the prayer of the petitioner in MCC No.901/10, the same was restored vide order dated 6.8.10. Subsequent to such restoration, on listing the matter on 26.9.11 again the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on such date. Subsequent to such dismissal, considering the MCC No.1636/11, again the writ petition was restored on 23.1.2011. Thereafter, this matter was listed on 4.4.12 and it is apparent from the order sheet that the same was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Looking to such conduct of the petitioner although he does not deserve for res...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »