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. Kallo Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.13394 o09. 10.12 Shri Shailendra Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.Dharmadhikari, GA for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 9.4.12 Annex.P/3 passed by respondent No.3 the Sub Divisional Forest Officer-cum Authorized Officer. In additional to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents to release her seized vehicle bearing registration not MP 22/AA-0763 and Trolley No.0764, is also made. In the couRs.of the arguments, I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that against the impugned order her appeal filed on dated 13.4.12 Annex.P/6 is pending for adjudication before the authority of the respondent No.2/ The Chief Conservator of Forest Cum Appellate Authority. In continuation he said that along with the appeal an application for giving the interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle and trolley was als...
Hariram Raikwar and anr. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.5629/2002 09.10.2012 Shri S.A.Wakeel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. After arguing at length, when confronted with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of JaCo.Mathew versus State of Punjab and another (2005).SCC 1.State of Punjab versus Shiv Ram and Others (2005) 7 SCC 1.Martin F.D'Souza versus Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 and Kusum Sharma and others versus Batra Hospital and Research Centre and others (2010) 3 SCC 480.the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take up proceedings for mitigation of their grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Kewal and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. Thru Collector and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 F.A. 402/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA F.A. No.402/1997 .........Appellants:1. Kewal 2. Vishram (Dead), S/o Bhawani through LRs:- (i) Smt. Mulia Bai, Wd/o Vishram (ii) Kamal Singh (iii) Jai Singh (iv) Balla All S/o Vishram, R/o Village Gora Tahsil Huzur, Bhopal, (M.P.) Versus .......Respondents:1. State of M.P. through Collector Bhopal, (M.P.) 2. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer Capital Project, Near Mata Mandir, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellants by - Shri Adil Usmani, Advocate Respondents/State by - Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (09/10/2012) Today is the auspicious day because the seed which was sown on 19.8.1962 has not grown up and is bearing the fruits which can not be reaped by the appellants because the land of the ...
Vaidhyanath Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.21844/2011(S) Vaidhyanath Shukla. versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents. ORDER (09.10.2012) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 6.2.2007, owing to filign of a challan in the Court of Special Judge, Rewa, for commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation, therefore, the said suspension order was revoked on 29.4.2008. The petitioner superannuated from the services on 30.4.2008. The pension case of the petitioner was prepared, but only a provisional pension was paid to him. In the Criminal case, the petitioner was convicted for commission of the aforesaid act read with Section 13(1)(d) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrupt...
Dr.Jinesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Writ Petition No.7370/09(S).9.10.2012 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents no.1 & 2. None for the respondents no.3 & 4 although served. Heard. At the out-set petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw I.A.No.8120/12, filed for recalling the order dated 17.4.2012, as not pressed. Considering such prayer, the aforesaid I.A.is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ in the shape of Certiorari for quashment of the order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the respondent no.4. Pursuant to it, the prayer for restoring the Gradation List Annexure-P-2, is also made. In the couRs.of arguments on admission after making the elaborate submissions with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, the petitioners counsel has made his limited prayer ...
Ramesh Kumar Johari Vs. Prem Narayan Saraf
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Writ Petition No.15459/12. 9.10.2012 Shri R.K.Nanhoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.8.2012, passed by 19th Additional District Judge Jabalpur, in Civil Original Suit No.102-A/06, dismissing the application for adjournment and pursuant to it, his right to adduce the evidence in support of the pleadings, has been closed. Initially the case was argued at length but in response of some query based on available circumstances at this stage, instead to argue further, petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise the objection and the grounds stated in this petition, subject to final judgment and decree on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal with a further prayer for appropriate direction in this regard. Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opi...
Deepak Sonkar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 W.P.No.15566/12 (O).9.10.2012. Shri Arup K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order daed 7.8.2012 whereby the respondent No.4 has been allotted the LPG dealership by the respondent No.2 and 3. After taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record the petitioner's counsel said that on proper consideration the respondent No.4 was not qualified for allotment of aforesaid LPG dealership inspite that by ignoring all concerned rules and regulations such dealership has been allotted to the respondent No.4 and prayed for admission and allowing this petition. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, after perusing the record I have found that representation of the petitioner (Ann. P.3) dated 28.8.2012 is still pending before respondent No.2 an...
Laxmikant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.1381/2011 09.10.2012 Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Abhay Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. None for the respondents No.6 and 9, though served and earlier represented. This Court has issued an order for compliance of the directions contained in Annexure P-4 on 28.09.2011. It was complained that such directions were not being complied with therefore, this Court has directed personal appearance of the District Education Officer, Satna before this Court. The Officer is present in person. However, it is pointed out by learned Government Advocate that a return has been filed explaining the fact as to why the amount of grant is not being paid to the petitioneRs.It is contended that after passing of certain orders by the competent authority, inspection of the school was done and it was found that there were dispute between the Society with respect to continu...
Lalji and ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.960 /1996 Lalji & 2 Others Vs. Deepak Kumar & 2 Others Counsel for the appellants : Shri M.L. Jaiswal, Senior counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Shri Adil Usmani, Advocate. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (09.10.2 012) This appeal is by the tenant, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in not adjudicating the dispute with regard to arrears of rent merely on the ground that sum was already deposited under section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that he is owner of suit shop which was let out to defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- on 15.6.1984. It was pleaded that the defendants are in arrears of rent for a period from 15.7.1986 to 15.7.1987,...
Jagnarayan Prasad Shah Vs. N.T.P.C. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 jagnarayan prasad shah vs. ntpc ltd. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.16924/2011 (s) JAGNARAYAN PRASAD SHAH VS. N.T.P.C. LTD. Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R. C. Shrivastava, for the respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 9-10-2012 ) Challenging the notification issued by the respondent Corporation on 14.7.2011 vide Annexure P/1 and the process initiated for filling up various posts, petitioners have filed this writ petition.2. It is a case of the petitioners that they are residents of Village Dewara, Post Pachaur, District Singrauli. Their land are situated in Rihand Nagar and has been acquired by the respondents' Corporation for 2 jagnarayan prasad shah ...
- ‹ Prev
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- Next ›
- Last »