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. Bodi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.C.C.No.1185/12 08.10.2012 Heard Ms.Vinita Kewat, learned counsel for applicants on the application for restoration of W.P.No.7661/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the arguing counsel was ill he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.7661/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number subject to the petitioner paying P.F.within seven days for issuance of notice to the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition informing them of the restoration of the writ petition. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.7661/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge ms...
Vijay Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
R.P.No.724/2012 08.10.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.This review petition has been filed stating that the petitioners were working in different Department and not in the School Education Department, therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2007, decided on 26.04.2007, though would be applicable but the respondents may take an objection that the petitioners are not employees of the School Education Department and, therefore, the similar law would not be made applicable. It is contended that relying on the law laid down by this Court, in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus State of M.P.and others and Om Prakash Chaturvedi versus State of M.P and otheRs.this Court has given the directions for all other employees. In view of this, the review of the order passed in W.P.No.12400/2012 on 27.08.2012 is sought for. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is ...
Satya Narayan Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.16740/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in...
Suresh Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Suresh Kumar Pathak versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15284/2012 08/10/2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State on advance notice. Challenging the charge-sheet issued by the petitioner on 24.5.2012 by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur and inter- alia contending that for the same allegations as are levelled in the charge-sheet, a criminal case is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that on the same set of circumstances, the charge- sheet and the criminal case cannot be proceeded. Petitioner is working as a Head Constable and on 19.4.2012, he was directed to take an accused, one Shri Jagannath son of Dulichandra Yadav to the District Hospital for treatment. It seems that the accused ran away from the hospital and, therefore, the petitioner is being proceeded against. As far as the criminal case is concerned, finding the petitioner to have commit...
Deepak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.5254/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 2/02/2012 in connection with Crime No.192/2011 registered at P.S.Bhangarh, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201/34, 120-B of IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail therefore, he prays for bail to this applicant. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per FSL report the empty kartoos found on spot was fired from the gun seized from the possession of this applicant therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application. Considering the overall facts and evidence on record alongwith the FSL report wherein prim...
Lalji Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16607/20108. 10.2012 Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued by the competent authority for recovery of the claims of the petitioner from the respondent No.2 and the said revenue recovery proceedings are pending consideration before the Collector, Rewa for a long period. Though there is no stay or any other restraint to execute the Revenue Recovery Certificate but a long period has lapsed and still the recovery has not been made. The representation to this effect was made but as nothing was done by the respondent No.4, the writ petition is required to be filed. This Court has observed in many of the cases that in case Revenue Recovery Certificate is issued by the competent Labour Court or other authorities, it is the responsibility of the recovering authority to make the recovery of ...
Amrat Singh Dhakad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Amrat Singh Dhakad versus State & ORS.W.P.No.11676/2012 08/10/2012 Shri Atul Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned GA for the respondents/State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima-facie, it is seen that the respondents have tried to give reasons, which go to justify the delay in conducting the enquiry. In view of the above, interim order of stay granted by this Court on 1.8.2012 is modified to the extent that respondents may proceed with the enquiry in accordance with rule but they shall not pass final order on the basis of the findings recorded in the enquiry, without leave of this Court. List the matter in the week commencing from 26th of November, 2012. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Urmila Avdesh Yadav Vs. Smt. Meena Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 W.P.No.17188/2012 Urmila Avdesh Yadav versus Smt. Meena Singh & ORS.08.10.2012 Heard Shri M.L.Jaiswal learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.M.Sharma for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the Collector, Chhatarpur is not considering the objections filed by the petitioner against the 'no confidence motion' moved by some of the members of the Janpad Panchayat, Barigarh (Gaurihar) District Chhatarpur, against the petitioner who is the President of the said Janpad Panchayat. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the Collector has examined the 'no confidence motion' and has also heard several of the members of the Janpad Panchayat in person who have clearly stated that they have moved the motion for no confidence and on that account has directed one Shri B.K.Pandey, Dy. Collector to function as the Presiding Officer who has convened the motion for no confid...
Brajesh Kumar Upadhya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Appeal 1042/2012 8.10.2012 Ms.Malti Dadariya, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.8.2012 in Writ Petition No.22034/2011(S).which was dismissed on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the matter at length submits that she may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to challenge the order of repatriation, if passed in the matter of appellant in future, on its own merits. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents hence it is allowed. Appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty as prayed. It is however made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and parties shall be free to agitate their contentions in case any such fresh petition is filed by the appellant. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge amit...
Pintoo Patel @ Jitendra Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9323/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 1/04/2012 in connection with Crime No.90/12 registered at P.S.Laur, District Rewa for the offence punishable under section 436/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against this applicant. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- Next ›
- Last »