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.
Om Prakash Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.14878 o10. 10.2012 Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt Adv for respondent no.4, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2012 (Ann. P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class- I, Panna in C.S.No.124-A/96 dismissing their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to carry out the measurement of the disputed boundaries. Initially after taking me through the papers placed on record, petitioner's counsel has argued the case at length for admission and allowing this petition. On asking the petitioner's counsel how the petitioner could be permitted to use the process of the Court as an agency for collecting the evidence for him by allowing the impugned application, on which petitioner's counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this ...
Heeralal @ Lallu Lal Vs. Municipal Council Amanganj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.15640/2012 (Heeralal @ Lallu Lal versus Municipal Council, Amanganj and otheRs.12.10.2012 Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the Collector, Panna in case No.17/Appeal/2011-12. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the aforesaid order the application filed by the petitioner objecting to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 has been rejected without adverting to the provisions of law or decision of this court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the authority has not applied his mind to the issues raised by the petitioner in detail or to the judgments of this court. Looking to the fact that the this petition has been filed against an interim order and the matter is still pending before the ...
Gopi Bai Vs. S.D.O., Astha, Sehore and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.7077/2002 (Smt. Gopi Bai versus S.D.O., Astha) 11.10.2012 Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State. In the present petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.09.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Astha, District Sehore under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj, Adhiniyam, 1993 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Maina Tahsil Astha District Sehore and the order passed by the Collector dated 29.10.2002 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner's term as Sarpanch is over and the effect of the impugned order dated 17.09.2011 has also lost its efficacy with the lapse of time and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. The petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Brijendra Sisodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1079/2011 Brijendra Sisodiya VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 11th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.4.2011 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.261/2010, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and sentenced for 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment was directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 19.1.2011, at about 7.45 p.m. in the evening, the vi...
Chandrika Prasad Vs. Indramani (D) Through Lr's: Rudramani Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.15948 o11. 10.12 Shri R.N.Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Sharma, counsel for the caveator. Respondents No.1 to 4, subject to order are yet to be notices. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, GA for respondent No.5 on advance copy. Shri K.K.Sharma, counsel for the original Caveator ,namely,Indramani submits that the caveator has passed way. Such submission is taken on record. It is noted that after death of original caveator, such counsel has no right to argue on merits of the matter. Heard on question of admission. The petitioner/judgment debtor/the defendant of Co.No.132- A/93 decided on 25.10.96 by III Civil Judge II Rewa , has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 3.9.12 passed by III Civil Judge-II, Rewa in Execution Case No.132-A/93-11 whereby his application filed under Order 21 rule 29 of the CPC for grant of stay till disposal of Co.No.1-A/12 filed for declaring the aforesaid decreed to be ab initio void ...
Lalit Kumar Arya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.13782/2005 Lalit Kumar Arya Vs. State of MP and others Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Devendra Gangrade, advocate. For the respondents : Shri P.K. Kourav, Dy. A.G.. ORDER (11.10.2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.06.2004 passed the Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Tawdi District Betul whereby the jeep belonging to the petitioner had been directed to be confiscated for offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and the order dated 11.02.2005 passed by the Conservator of Forest in appeal affirming the said order as well as the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Criminal Revision No.35/05 dated 09.06.2005 dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the fact that the jeep n...
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Atwal Vs. Shri Manoj Jhilani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Contempt Case No :433. of 2012 Dr. Harbhajan Singh Atwal - V/s - Shri Manot Jhilani & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, counsel for the applicant. Shri V. Mishra, counsel for the non-applicants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 11/10/2012 Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 22.11.2011, in Writ Petition No.13678/2009(S).has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. 2- Applicant is an Assistant Director (Coach) in the Department of Physical Education, Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa. He had filed the writ petition and the reliefs claimed were that he should be paid the revised pay scale as recommended by the University Grants Commissio...
Vishwanath Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.1187/2012 11.10.2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. Though earlier the writ petition was admitted by this Court and notices were issued to the respondents, no return whatsoever has been filed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh versus State of M.P.and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003).It is further contended that the grant of second 'Kramonnati' from the date as prescribed in the circular was also not considered by the respondents and, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is pointed out that the person who has filed the Writ Petition No.9130/2012, namely, Chhatrapal Singh, was also the employee of the very same institution and in his writ petition, the direction has been given by this Court to consider his clai...
Smt. Shashi Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
WRIT PETITION No.13884/20111. 10.2012 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned Counsel with the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Praveen Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. This writ petition is filed challenging the validity of order dated 31.1.2012 by the Additional Collector, Katni, in Appeal filed by the respondent No.5 as also the order of Commissioner, Jabalpur, by which the revision filed against the order of Collector, by the petitioner has been dismissed, on the ground that the appeal against the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 15.9.2008, could not have been filed by the respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector and the said authority was not competent authority to decide such an appeal of the petitioner. It is contended that when the order was passed by the Addl. Collector, the revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the said revision has been dismissed, therefore, this writ petition is required to be file...
Gudda Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
M.Cr.C.No.11870 o11. 10.2012 Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant the accused of Criminal Revision No.1034/2007 has filed this petition (it appears to be under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) for extension of time to deposit the enhanced sum of fine amount in compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed in the aforesaid revision. Having perused the petition alongwith the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2011, passed in criminal revision for the reasons stated in petition, by allowing this petition, the applicant is extended further period of ten days from today to deposit the enhanced sum of fine amount in compliance of the aforesaid direction of order dated 14.12.2011, failing which the applicant has to suffer the jail sentence awarded in default of depositing the fine amount. Accordingly this petition is allowed. C c as per rules. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »