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.
Kailash Chandra Vs. Shyam Sundar Rathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Writ Petition No.15713/12. 12.10.2012 Shri Awadhesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 22.8.2012, passed by the Upper Collector Narsinghpur, in suo-moto revenue revision no.38-A- 5/2011-12, reversing the order dated 9.1.2012 passed by Tahsildar Gadarwara in revenue case no.5A/11-12 whereby, the Tahsildar has directed some modification and correction in the revenue map/record. As per findings of the Collector, the Tahsildar has passed such order contrary to the existing provision and beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Court of Tahsildar. In the couRs.of arguments in response of some query of the Court regarding maintainability of this petition before this Court in view of availability of alternate Forum before the Commission of Revenue as well as the Board of Revenue to challenge the impugned order on which, instead to ar...
Nagendra Singh Vs. Smt. Satyabhama Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Writ Petition No.15228/12. 12.10.2012 Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State-respondent no.2 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the IInd Additional District Judge Satna, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.23/09, affirming the order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure-P-3).passed by IVth Civil Judge Class-II Satna, in Civil Suit No.237-A/2008, whereby allowing the application of the respondent no.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in the pending Suit an ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners from any interference in her possession of the disputed land mentioned in the suit was issued. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with averments of the petition argued that initially the disputed property was the pr...
Blooms Academy Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 W.P.No.10470/2008 Blooms Academy versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 12.10.2012 Shri P.C.Chandak learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would approach the appellate authority for mitigation of his grievance against the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 1.8.2008 and, therefore, the petition, filed by the petitioner, be permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he be granted 30 days time to approach the appellate authority and till orders on the petitioner's interim application are not passed by the authority, the interim order passed by this Court may be continued. In view of the aforesaid, while the petition is permitted to be withdrawn, it is observed that in case the petitioner files an appeal, as undertaken by him within thirty days alongwith an application for stay and reg...
K.K. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 W.P.NO.11929/11 (I).12.10.2012. Ku.C.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of listing the case IA No.8920/12, petitioner's application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner / plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.6.2011 (Ann. P.10) whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent/ defendant to supply the electricity in his premises, in alternate the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the MPSEB to provide him new connection is made. In the couRs.of the argument in view of nature of the impugned suit whereby the petitioner has filed the same only for recovery of sum and not for other purpose, on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of amended provis...
Ashutosh Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.19526/2011 (Ashutosh Upadhyay versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.10.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities have not released the payment amounting to Rs.13,50,360/- in respect of 4 stop dams constructed by the petitioner in Pali and Karkeli, district Umaria. It is submitted that the authorities had infact examined the bills, prepared the cheque of the aforesaid amount, however, suddenly the same were cancelled and the payment of the petitioner was withheld. As it was stated that the outstanding amount against the petitioner is undisputed, therefore, notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have filed a return and submitted that while preparing the final bills of the petitioner and other documents relating to the construction of four ...
A.P. Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.17353 / 2012 (A.P.Upadhyaya...Vs...State of M.P.& ors.) 12-10-2012 Heard Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent/authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 regarding illegalities committed by him in the supply of mid day meals to the Primary School, Dokariya, District Katni. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition it appears that in spite of the matter being referred to the authorities no steps have been taken by them in the matter till date. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Collector, Katni to look into the grievance of the petitioner placed before him by filing a representation dated 3-9-2012 and take a decision thereon expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing all concerned includi...
Vijay Singh Vs. Smt. Kranti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.15879 o12. 10.2012 Shri Ashish Shroti and Shri Amit Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner husband has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the District Judge, Damoh in Civil Suit No.24- A/2012, whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he has been directed to pay her Rs.1500/- per month for herself, Rs.800/- per month for the daughter as interim alimony. Besides this the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.500/- per date of hearing for travelling to attend the case alongwith one attendant. Having heard, perused the impugned order alongwith the papers placed on record in the available scenario of the matter in which after obtaining the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Right under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act after near about three...
Ramdeen Jat Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.988/1997 Ramdeen Jat VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajesh Nema, counsel for the appellant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 12th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.4.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sehore in Special case No.195/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month's additional rigoro...
Ram Dayal Lakhera Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.1251/2012 (R.D.Lakhera & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.10.2012 Shri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and 4. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that the respondent Nagar Panchayat Kothi, district Satna has not allotted the shops to the petitioners in accordance with the compromise judgment and decree of the Third Additional District Judge, Satna passed in C.S.No.2-A/09. The learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Panchayat per contra submits that as per the compromise arrived at between the parties, 20 shops have been constructed out of which 15 are on the main road, while 5 have been constructed at the back and the shops have been allotted by adopting the chit system by which the petitioners have been allotted the shop in the back row, against which, the petitioners have approached the Collector and the matter is pending befo...
Nawab Mansoor Ali Khan Patoudi,lrs- Smt. Sharmila Vs. the State of Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.2516 o12. 10.2012 Shri R.K.Pancholi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Shri A.L.Ahirwar, learned counsel for the applicant Saviya Sultan. Initially this case was listed in the list of motion hearing cases on Tuesday, i.e.on 9.10.2012 but since such date till yesterday at the request of the colleague of the appearing counsel for the petitioneRs.the same was kept as pass over on every day. Pursuant to it, it is listed today as item No.1 in the list of not reached cases. Looking to the long list of motion hearing cases and the nature of the query made from the petitioneRs.counsel, vide order dated 21.8.2012, I deem fit to hear the arguments on such query after ten days, hence office is directed to place this matter after 15 days or in any case in the week commencing 5.11.2012. State's counsel submits that earlier some report has been submitted by him in compliance of the earlier direction. Office is directed to list t...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »