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.
Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.332 o09. 10/2012 Shri R.K.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, Advocate for respondent no.6. This appeal is directed against an order dated 06/03/2012 passed in Writ Petition No.8924/2009(S).by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector and Commissioner were quashed. These orders have been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the certificate produced by the respondent no.6 was a fake certificate, but inspite of this the learned Single Judge has set aside the aforesaid ordeRs.All the three authorities have recorded concurrent findings that the certificate produced by respondent no.6 was a fake certificate. The learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered in the aforesaid findings. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no.6 have also supported the order passed by the Single Judge on...
Vishwas Giri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.7518/2011 Vishwas Giri versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Anoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (09.10.2012) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 has directed a recovery of negative balance of G.P.F.of the grandfather of the petitioner from him whereas the petitioner has received nothing as G.P.F.of his grandfather from respondent No.5 and as such recovery could not have been ordered against the petitioner. It is contended that the grandfather of the petitioner was in service and was having G.P.F.account not NMP/5222, which was maintained by respondent No.5. Since the petitioner was nominated by his 2 grandfather when he made correspondence for payment of G.P.F.amount of his grandfather, he was intimated that there was a negative balance of Rs.1,68,583/- wh...
Surendra Pratap Singh Solanki Vs. the Secretary Mp State Electricity B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.4498/2011 Surendra Pratap Singh Solanki Vs. The Secretary, M.P. State Electricity Board & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (09.10.2012) The claim of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension owing to a criminal prosecution. An order of dismissal was issued against him on account of conviction by the Court of law. Against the order of conviction, he preferred an appeal before this Court and the said appeal was decided on 31.07.2006 completely acquitting the petitioner. Since the conviction of the petitioner was set aside, on making an application, after considerable time, the petitioner was rei...
Sri Satya Sai Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.6628 o9. 10.2012 Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Amalpushpa Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. This case is taken out of its turn at the request of the counsel present. In view of long list of motion hearing cases the final disposal of the matter is not possible today, hence the case is adjourned with a direction to place alongwith W.P.No.12864/2011 on 22.11.2012 for final disposal. It it also made clear that if the case is not heard finally then the question of interim relief as well as all pending applications shall be considered on such date. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Smt. Maya Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.16887 o09. 10.12 Shri R.K.Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 10.9.12/13.9.12 Annex.P/1 passed by respondent No.2 Zila Aapurti Adhikari, Shahdol under the authority of clause 11 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2009, whereby her alloted Fair Price Shop was suspended and same is directed to be attached to the allotted Fair Price Shop of Ward No.17. Simultaneously, the show- cause notice dated 13.9.12 along with the aforesaid order is also issued to the petitioner. As per averments of the petition the proceedings initiated to make the inquiry on the basis of the show-cause notice is being carried out by the aforesaid Zila Aapurti Adhikari. In such premises, it appears that this petition is preferred during pendency of the proceedings of show-cause notice and not against the final order of such a...
Shaym Lal Shau Vs. Nav Bharat Press Pvt. Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.15624 OF 201.Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Petitioner versus Nav Bharat Press Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MeNo................................................................................................... Shri Sanjay Verma for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. ................................................................................................ ORDER (9/10/2012) Even though records indicate that notices have been sent by registered post acknowledgment due and the service has been effected on the respondents, but still none is appearing for the respondent.2. Challenging the award dated 11/03/10 Annexure P-1 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur rejecting a reference made with regard to termination of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.3. Petitioner was appointed in the respondents' establishment on 1/06/1979. He was promoted ...
Municipal Council Balaghat Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1...W.A.No.721 o09. 10.2012 Shri Manot Sharma, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for respondent No.7. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.4.2010 by which a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the master plan of township of Balaghat was dismissed. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to approach the State Government under Section 23 of the M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,1973 for modification of the development plan for the township of Balaghat and in case the matter is referred to the Director, appellant may be permitted to represent its case before the Director. The prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.and Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sankalp Kochar. In view of the...
Mustak Ali Vs. Smt. Neil Kamal Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.15615/2012 09.10.2012 Shri M.K.Jaiswal, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Seetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent no.2, on advance copy. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission of this writ petition as well as IA No.12296/12, an application for issuing ad interim injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from selling the remaining areas of 0.475 hectare of disputed land, returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be issued to the respondent no.1, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let this matter be listed immediately after receiving the service report of said notice or in any case in the week commencing 3.12.2012. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, both the parties are restrained from alienating, tr...
Om Construction Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 W.P. No.14675/2011 9.10.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries. Heard. Being aggrieved of nonreleasing of 50% of performance guarantee; petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to respondents to release the balance 50% of the performance guarantee amounting to Rs.12,16,037/ furnished in connection with the agreement No. 169/EE/0304. The agreement in question was in pursuant to notice inviting tenders for balance work of upgradation of Nagod Uchehra Road PhaseI, as the petitioner's bid was lowest. Total amount of contract was Rs.140.20 lacs and the work order was issued on 26.3.2004. That, in the said agreement there was additional special condition for Mandi Works that the Contractor shall be responsible for the performance and maintenance of the work carried out by him for...
Raja Babu Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1954/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1954/1996 Raja Babu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 9th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khurai, District Sagar in S.T. No.227/94, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced for four years R.I. with fine of `1,000/- and five years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/- respectively. In each default of paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »