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.
Ravi Gupta Vs. A.K. Patra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Cr. Rev. No.2224/2009 Ravi Gupta S/o Chhotelal Gupta Versus A.K. Patra and others ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.P. Pandey, counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Sharad Punj,counsel for the respondents/non- applicants No.1 to 11. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :23. 08/2012 Date of order:5. 10/2012 ORDER This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 5.11.2009 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Umaria (MP) in Criminal Revision No.54/2009 arising out of the order dated 4.4.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaria for taking cognizance against the respondents under Sections 323/34, 427, 506 of IPC.2. Facts, in short, giving rise to this revi...
Shri Shambhu Dayal Tiwari Shiksha Prasar Samiti Nowgaon, Dist. Chhatar ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.14545/2012 Shri Shambhu Dayal Tiwari N.C.T.E.& others Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Nowgaon 5.10.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 on advance notice. This petition is listed for hearing on admission. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application for grant of recognition is pending before respondent no.2 since 28.9.2011 for D.EL.ED., couRs.and the respondent no.2 be directed to decide the application expeditiously. From the perusal of Annexure P-2, it appears that the application of petitioner for grant of recognition is pending since 28.9.2011, which deserves attention of respondent no.2. In view of aforesaid, without making any comment on the merits of the case, we dispose of this petition with following directions:- 1. Petitioner to submit an application to respondent no.2 for expeditious decision on the application dated 28.9.2011 seeking recognition for D.EL.ED., course.2....
Govind Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16932/12 5/10/12 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Principal' Govt. Higher Secondary School Khamh, Sankul Govt. Higher Secondary School Choupal, Distt. Sidhi and it is the grievance of the petitioner that the competent authority be directed to consider the request sent by respondent No.5 for posting of some regular incumbent for the post of 'Principal' and not to fill up the post by transfer of Varishta Adhyapak. Accordingly, contending that in pursuance to the letter written by respondent No.5 on 23/09/12, action be taken for filling up of the post in accordance with the statutory rules of 2008 i.e.the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008, this writ petition is filed. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the competent authority to ...
Smt. Malti Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.16496/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh, 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 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 the...
Maqsood Alam Siddiqui Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.2057/2011 05.10.2012 Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Shri Adhitya Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. I.A.No.4572/2012, an application for taking rejoinder to the return filed by the respondent No.3 on record, is considered and allowed. The rejoinder is taken on record. The return on behalf of respondents No.1, 2,4 as also the respondent No.5 have not been filed. Looking to the controveRs.involved in the present petition, it would be necessary to obtain a return from these respondents. Since opportunities were earlier granted to file return to the aforesaid respondents, as a last opportunity, four weeks' time is allowed to the respondents No.1, 2, 4 as also the respondent No.5 to file the return, failing which the writ petition would be heard without the return of the aforesaid respondents. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
L.N. Kasar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16271/2010 05.10.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Though a return has been filed in the present writ petition, but by filing I.A.No.11377/2012, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in similar circumstances in case of one Shri Ashish Kumar Chourey by the Indore Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4050/2009(S).which has been disposed of finally on 26.6.2009. It is stated that in terms of the direction issued by this Court Bench at Indore, case of Ashish Kumar was considered and an order has been issued on 30.1.2012. It is pointed out that said Ashish Kumar Chourey is junior to the petitioners in the length of service as names of petitioners are above the name of said Shri Ashish Kumar Chourey. These facts are not in dispute as the documentary evidence is already available on record. Considering the aforesaid, without entering into the m...
Mridul Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 W.P.No.19714/2011 5.10.2012 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.A.G.for respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri Sunil Pandey, Counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Sunil Pandey submits that today he has filed reply in compliance of the order dated 6.7.2012, but copy of the said reply is not served on the petitioner and counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. On being asked very specifically whether he is possessing any acknowledgement in respect of filing of reply in the office or supplying of copy to other side, Shri Pandey submits that he may be allowed a short time in this regard. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent No.3 also prays a day's time for compliance of the order dated 6.7.2012. This Bench is constituted for only this case and for hearing of this case, today we are sitting. Respondents are taking this matter lightly and inspite of two adjournments, order has not been complied with. Considering aforesaid, in the interest of justice, respondent No.4 ...
Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Writ Petition No.16580/2012 05/10/2012 Shri Manot Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D Notices be made returnable in four weeks. Notices should contained specifically to explain as to why the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12504/2008 (s) on 18/11/2011 was not complied with in letter and spirit and how the order impugned dated 30 th November 2011 could be passed without granting the benefit to the petitioner as directed by this Court. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge s/-...
Bhartiya Cooperative GramIn Vikas Evam Nirman Ltd. Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 W.P.No.14059/2012 Bhartiya Co-operative Gramin Vikas Evam Nirman versus State of M.P & ORS.05.10.2012 Shri G.S.Ahluwalia learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 withdrawing the work allotted to the petitioner as a nodal agency under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Rewa to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.8.2012 in the light of the letter of the concerned Member of Parliament dated 19.9.2012, Annexure P-18. The learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance wi...
Smt. Damyanti Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16374/20105. 10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- Next ›
- Last »