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.Koushilya Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.A.No.977/2012 Smt.Koushilya bai State of M.P.& others 31.10.2012 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.1,2 & 3. It is reported that respondent No.5 has been arrested by the police for an offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. However, respondents No.4 and 6 have not been arrested. It is submitted by Shri Dwivedi that the appellant is continuously getting threats on behalf of respondents No.4 & 6 through their some close relations and has been threatened to face the consequences if complaint lodged by the appellant is not withdrawn. On raising such contention, Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.AG submits that he shall seek instructions from the respondent No.2 and if required, adequate protection shall be provided to the appellant, so that she may be protected by the culprits or from their relations. In view of aforesaid, we adjourn hearing of this appeal for 10/12/2012. On the aforesaid date, learned counsel for State shall apprise this C...
Raghvendra Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.6545/20131. 10.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by w...
Leeladhar Barve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.17123/12. 31.10.2012. Shri Ashish Rawat and Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned GA for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue the appropriate writ against the respondents authorities for following relief:1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to prepare or publish the agenda for considering the applications for grant of interstatal permit, not only in the office of the respondent No.3 and Internet but also publish the same in the offices of the Regional Transport Authority and District Transport Authority, for getting the knowledge by the local operatORS.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and to give an opportunity of hea...
Raju Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18113 / 2012 (Raju Singh Thakur ..Vs..State of M.P.and another) 31-10-2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming retotalling of marks in the subject of English in the Class 12th examination which was conducted by the respondent/Board in which the petitioner had appeared in the 2011-12 session. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a meritorious student and has secured distinction in all subjects including English, however, he was expecting 92 marks but has been awarded only 77 marks and in such circumstances he prays for retotalling of marks in the subject of English. The petitioner has filed a copy of the concerned answer sheet alongwith the petition which has been obtained by him by filing an application under Right to Information Act. On going through the answer sheet I find that the totalling done therein does not suffer from any mis...
Shyam Narayan Urf Bablu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
M. Cr.C.No.12005/12 31/10/12 Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned Govt. Adv.for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent/State. This is the 4th bail application of the applicant who has been arrested in Crime No.5/06 for an offence U/s 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S.Act. Petitioner was found in possession of 105 kg. of Ganja and has been arrested. The bail application has already been rejected on merit by this Court and even on the ground of certain witnesses not supported the case of prosecution, the 3rd bail application was rejected on 13/01/12 in M. Cr.C.No.13699/11. Now, in this 4th bail application, bail is sought for on the ground that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial and petitioner is in custody for 21/2 years and, therefore, bail should be granted. Keeping in view the aforesaid, report was called for from the Distt. and Sessions Judge, Anuppur and the trial Judge has submitted his report dated 19/10/12 which goes to indicate that trial has been ...
Harish Mittal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Review Petition No.820/2012 31/10/2012 None for the petitioner. This review petition is directed against an order dated 10/09/2012 passed in Review Petition No.683/2012, which was dismissed by a detailed order. In the aforesaid case, review was sought against an order dated 30/07/2012 passed in Review Petition No.377/2012. From perusal of the order dated 10/09/2012, we find that all the contentions of the petitioner were considered, review petition was misconceived. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is found without merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o20. 09/2012 Parties present. The matter is to be heard finally. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General submits that he is not ready. In view of the aforesaid, be listed for hearing on 16/10/2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.20...
Babulal Rathor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17738/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Santosh Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that similar petition has been filed by some of the persons before this Court being W.P.No.14106/2009 (Archana Rathore and others versus State of M.P.and others).which is pending consideration before this Court and, therefore, the petitioner has also intended to file the present writ petition before this Court, though, it may not be within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Court. It would have been better if the petitioner would have made an application on administrative side before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for granting permission to file the present writ petition before the Principal Bench of this Court. The same still can be done. The petitioner if so chooses may make an application to this effect. The registry is directed to place such an application before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, if made, expeditiously. List thereafter. (K.K....
Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17776/2012 (R.K.Jain versus State of MP and otheRs.31.10.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. After arguing at a length, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authority i.e.the Managing Director M.P.State Civil Supply Corporation LTD.Bhopal to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner vide Annexure P/19 in respect of the recovery sought to be made against him pursuant to the contract for transportation awarded to him. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation/dispute Annexure P/19 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. To enable the authority concerned to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be...
Suresh Kumar Tiwari [Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
suresh kumar tiwari versus state 1 W.P.No.18004/2012 31.10.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Patwari in Halka Sukhdas No.35, Tahsil Manpur, District Umaria. Vide order dated 2.4.2012 Annexure P/9 petitioner was transferred to Nowrozabad on the ground that petitioner is posted in Manpur which is his home tahsil and therefore, as per the policy of the State Government Patwari cannot be posted in his home tahsil. Challenging the aforesaid transfer order petitioner approached this Court after submitting a representation and it was a case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Tahsil Beohari and his transfer on the ground that he is a resident of Manpur is not correct. Considering the fact that representation of the petitioner was pending the earlier writ petition No.8486/2012 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2012 Annexure P/1 directing the respo...
Ram Lakhan Mishra Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.) W.A. NO.595/2012 Ram Lakhan Mishra, S/o Shri Shoukhilal Mishra, Aged about 21 years, By occupation: Secretary, R/o Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur, Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.) .....Appellant Vs.1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat & Social Justice Department, Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Collector, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Majhgawa, Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P) 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.) 5. Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur, Through: The Sarpanch, Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.) 6. Shri Shashikant Vishwakarma, S/o Basantilal Vishwakarma, R/o Village Hariharpur, Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.) .....Respondents and W.A. No.596/2012 Ram Lakhan Mishra, Aged about 21 years, S/o Shri Shoukhilal Mishra, R/o Village Hariharpur Tahsil Majhgawa, District Satna (M.P.) .....Appellant Vs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »