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.
Manish Tiwari Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.16920 o12. 10.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This matter is taken out of its turn from the list of today's motion hearing cases. Considering the prayer of the respondents' counsel, the petitioner's counsel is directed to supply him two sets of this petition alongwith the Annexures during the couRs.of the day enabling him to file the return in the matter. Shri Nair seeks for and is granted 15 days time to file the return in the matter alongwith Vakalatanama. Let this matter be placed under the same head in the week commencing 29.10.2012. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, it is directed that with respect of the allotment of the impugned dealership of Gas Agency, if any step is taken by the respondent, then the same shall be deemed to be subjected to any interim order or final order of this petition. C c as per rules. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Sanjay Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.17292 / 2012 (Sanjay Malviya ..Vs..State of MP & others.) 12-10-2012 Heard Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, 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 by not registering FiRs.Information Report on the complaint made by the petitioner against the respondents No.4 and 5. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, to look into the matter and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the said 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 alleged respondents but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the peti...
Suresh Kumar Mishra Vs. Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.16960 / 2012 (Suresh Kumar Mishra.Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.12-10-2012 Heard Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-2012 by which the petitioner has been given last notice under Section 307 of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/authorities are proceeding to take action against the petitioner under Section 307 of the Act without considering the petitioner's application/reply filed by him before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur on 27-9-2012. Apparently, the petitioner has filed the present petition against the show cause notice dated 27-9-2012 which is clear from the facts of the narration in the notice which says that it is the last notice. On a query being made it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that he has n...
Shankerlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 Writ Petition No.16164/12. 12.10.2012 Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondent No.2 and 3 to take immediate step for executing the permanent lease in their favour with respect of their respective plots describe in the petition. Besides the aforesaid, the prayer to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the disputed plots is also made. Having heard the counsel in the available circumstances of the case instead to admit this petition for final hearing, the same is disposed of by extending a liberty to the petitioners to file their fresh elaborate representations separately along with the copy of this order, petition and annexures in the office of the respondents' authorities withi...
Ku. Ajita Awadhiya Vs. the Deputy Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.7013/2012 12.10.2012 Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Swapnil Sahgaura, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the scholarship amount has already been disbursed to the petitioner, who has received the same, therefore, the petition has been rendered infructuous. He further submits that the aforesaid aspect has been mentioned in the return. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous as nothing further survives for adjudication in the matter. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Heeralal Sharma [Upadhyay] Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
W.P.No.1852/2012 (Heeralal Sharma versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.10.2012 Shri S.K.P.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation submits that the order removing the petitioner from the service has been recalled by the Municipal Corporation on 31.08.2012 pursuant to which the petitioner has also rejoined the service by submitting a joining report on 31.08.2012, a copy of which has been filed by them alongwith the return as Annexure R-2/1 and R-2/2. It is stated that as the petitioner has rejoined the services and that the impugned order has been withdrawn, therefore, nothing further survives for adjudication in the matter which has been rendered infructuous. In view of the aforesaid statement and the averments made by the respondents in the return, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Judge...
Shri Jagat Guru Shankarachariya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahara ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
R.P.No.541/2011 Shri Jagat Guru Shankarachariya Sameer Electronics Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Mahara12. 10.2012 Ms.Neelam Goel, counsel for petitioner. Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for respondent. This review petition is filed against an order dated 6.4.2010, in Civil Revision No.249/2008, by which a revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, though the second alternate contention of the petitioner was accepted and cost imposed by the appellate Court was enhanced to further Rs.2,000/-. As the Judge who had passed the order is not available, this matter is placed before the Division Bench as per Rule 5 of Order XLVII C.P.C.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without considering the moot question involved in the case that there was no sufficient cause for absence of respondent, on the date on which the case was proceeded exparte, the revision petition was disposed of and cost was enhanced. It was also submitted by Ms.Goel that she had never prayed before the Single Bench...
Nanhelal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2203/1996 Nanhelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri S.C. Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 12th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST. No.285 of 1995 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C and sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, four months simple imprisonment was directed.2. The...
Abhijit Rajan, M.D. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1 W.P.No.17471/2012 Abhijit Rajan & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.12.10.2012 Heard Shri Akash Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.9.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby sanction for prosecution of the petitioners has been granted under section 54 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioneRs.company is involved in construction of chimneys under the Sasan Mega Power Project. During construction chipping work was being undertaken by the company in which it is stated that due precaution was taken as required by Section 41 of the Act to ensure that the nets were installed and that no labour or employee would traveRs.the area where the chips were falling. It is stated that unfortunately one Ghasiram Munda, who ...
Smt. Shakunbai Pohkar Vs. Timaji Thackrey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Writ Petition No.14853/12 12.10.2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission as well as of I.A.No.11740/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the trial Court, returnable by fixing a date in the month of December 2012, be issued to the respondents failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, the further proceedings of Civil Original Suit No.23-A of 2011, pending in the Court of Vth Civil Judge Class-II Chhindwara, is hereby stayed. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »