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.
Dr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1...W.P.No.13925 o08. 10.2012 Shri A.K.Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguli, Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner's representations Annexure P-9 and P-10 are still pending with the respondents. Petitioner is claiming parity and benefit of the judgment passed in W.P.No.7848 of 2010 decided on 24.2.2011 [Dr. UtkaRs.Gupta versus State of M.P.and ors].by the Indore Bench which has been affirmed up to the Apex Court. It is submitted that if the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the case of the petitioner, same benefits shall be extended to the petitioner while deciding the representations Annexure P-9 and P-10. Contention made by the learned counsel for the respondents is not opposed by the petitioner. Hence this petition is finally disposed of with the following directions:- 1. Respondents No.2/3 shall consider and decide the representations of the petitioner Annexure P-9 and P-10 expeditiously as far as po...
Madhya Pradesh Poorve Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Writ Petition No.15449/12. 8.10.2012 Shri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. On behalf of petitioner the Electricity Company, this petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2012, passed by the appellate authority constituted under the Electricity Act in Appeal No.3/12, whereby, allowing the application of the respondent no.2 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the entire delay in filling such appeal has been condoned. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record argued that vide order dated 13.12.2011 passed in writ petition No.2996/11 (Annexure-P-1).the respondent no.2 was extended the period of four weeks from such date to file the impugned appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the appellate authority, but instead of filing such appeal within the aforesaid prescribed period, the same has be...
Shambhu Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Shambhu Lal Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Baghaoo, Dhumma, District- Sidhi. By the impugned order dated 27-09-2012 petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Baghaoo to Government Higher Secondary School Dhumma. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as to how the students-teacher ratio should be maintained, reductio...
Smt. Shanta Hatekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16684/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Dhiryakant Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 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 the circular dated 21/0...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohan Alias Bhura
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Criminal Appeal No.2152/2012 08.10.2012 Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State-appellant. None for the respondents. Heard on admission. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21/8/2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.268/2011, whereby the respondents were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for 18 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- each. The State has filed this appeal because a lesser sentence has been awarded by the trial Court. It is apparent from the judgment of the trial Court that both the respondents were young youths of 23 years of age at the time of incident. They did not have any criminal past alleged against them. The trial Court has refused to grant the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondents, because such type of incidents relating to chain snatching were increasing. However, looking to the age of the respondents and after cons...
indra Kumar Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15671/20108. 10.2012 Shri Komal Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. 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 writ petitioners s...
Jailal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1834/1996 Jailal VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 8th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.9.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'NDPS Act'), Satna in Special case No.31/1994, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 20 of NDPS Act and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecu...
Navneet Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :605. OF 200.(s) Mukesh Kumar Rai V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :671. OF 200.(s) Ramsujan Patel & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Writ Petition No :672. OF 200.(s) Preetam Singh Thakur V/s State of M.P. & Ors. & Writ Petition No :674. OF 200.(s) Navneet Tiwari & Ors. V/s State of M.P. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.10.2012 As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these four petitions and as the impugned orders are also identical in nature they are being disposed of by this common order and for the sake of con...
Parsadi Lal Tandiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15697/20108. 10.2012 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate 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 petitioners are 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...
Yado Rao Vs. Naru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.15330 o08. 10.12 Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 9.8.12 Annex.P/5 passed by Civil Judge-II, Balaghat in C.S.No.21-A/10 whereby his application Annex.P/3 filed under section 40 of the Specific Relief Act (for short `the Act') for issuing mandatory injunction against the respondent/plaintiff has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner counsel for admission and allowing this petition but on asking the counsel how his application under section 40 of the Act in the lack of any independent civil suit or the counter claim on behalf of the petitioner for declaration and perpetual injunction/mandatory injunction, could be entertained by the trial court as well as by this court, on which, after perusing the provisions of section 40, 34 and 38 of the Act, instead to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- Next ›
- Last »