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. A.E. Bose Vs. S.K. Choubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Smt. A.E.Bose versus S.K.Choubey Con.C.No.826/2010 05/10/2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution r/w Section 12 & 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the prayer made is that the explanation be called for from the respondent or in the alternate, contempt proceedings be initiated against him. As this contempt application has been filed against a judicial officer rejecting a complaint with regard to certain act of the judicial officer, while deciding a case, matter was placed before the office to submit a report with regard to maintainability of the contempt application and the office report indicates that the contempt application in the manner filed is not maintainable. Be it as it may be, the grievance of the applicant seems to be that in a proceeding pending against the applicant before the respondent and while an application under Order 7 Rule 11 was being decided, applicant had pointed out certain j...
Deepak Singh Segar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Deepak Singh Segar and others versus State of MP and otheRs.05.10.2012. Shri Devesh Khatri for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents. Interalia contending that candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer have been rejected mainly on the ground that the qualifications of M.Phil and Ph.D have been obtained by them under the distance education scheme and, therefore, not valid, petitioners have filed the writ petition. On a perusal of the averments made by the petitioners in I.A.No.12076/2012, it is seen that similar petitions were filed by various persons before the Gwalior Bench of this Court being W.P.No.3290/2012(S) [Manot Sharma and others versus State of MP and others].and by order passed on 29.8.2012, the petitions have been allowed and direction have been issued to consider the claim of the employees similarly situated. Keeping in view the order passed by the Gwalior Bench as indicated hereinabove, respondents are direc...
Ojharam Evane Vs. Jyoti Dhurve
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1 E.P.No.46/2009 5.10.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for respondent No.1. Sarvashri Vijay Nayak and Anand Nayak, Counsel for respondent No.4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that evidence of petitioner is not present. Petitioner also could not come today as he has suffered injury at Bhopal where he was participating in some agitation. It is prayed that for evidence of petitioner and his witnesses, an adjournment may be allowed. Prayer is opposed by the respondents who submitted that no further adjournment be allowed and the evidence of the petitioner may be closed. On last date of hearing, petitioner was present and his statement remained incomplete and the case was fixed for today. The petitioner ought to have remained present before this Court, but it appears that because of aforesaid event, he could not come. Though petitioner ought to have filed an application, but considering the aforesaid ...
Satpura-narmada Kshetriya GramIn Bank Vs. Toran Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.9303/2011 05.10.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri S. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 16.6.2011 has categorically directed the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and has directed the stay of the execution of impugned award only if the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act are complied with. Though I.A.No.8658/2011 has been filed by the respondent indicating that the compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Act have not been made, no response has been filed. In view of this, it is made clear that if the compliance of Section 17-B of the Act was not done by the petitioner, the award passed by the Labour Court would be executable against the petitioner. Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 3.12.2012 for further direction in this respect. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Yagyanarayan Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.12859/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the order of promotion dated 20.07.2012, the name of the petitioner is not included yet a posting order has been issued as if the petitioner is promoted on the next higher post. In his place another person is being posted at Bhadanpur, Range Maihar. Looking to the aforesaid, status-quo as obtaining today with respect to the posting of petitioner be maintained till the next date of listing. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Arun Kumar Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.04.10.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Chapa, Block Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Unnyan Dogri Tola Hardi 77. 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 sh...
Pavan Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1759/1997 Criminal Appeal No.3280/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.1759/1997 Pavan Kumar and 2 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.3280/1999 Gopi Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the appellants. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of October, 2012) Both the criminal appeals arose from a common sessions trial. The evidence is common therefore the appellants Pawan Kumar, Halkebhai etc. have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.8.1997 whereas the appellant Gopi Bai has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.11.1999 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST N...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.(S).No.3667/2005 04.10.2012 Shri P.K.Asati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 4. None for the respondents No.2 and 3, though represented and the return has already been filed by them. On the last date of hearing, this Court was required to issue a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to seek instructions and to show as to why they are not making payment of 50% of the salary amount, which they are required to pay from their own sources in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court as the grant to be paid to the Society was fixed by the Apex Court to the extent of 50%. No instructions in this respect have been pointed out by the respondents as yet. The return of respondents No.2 and 3 indicates that the Society is having no funds to make the payment of part of the salary of the petitioner which the respondents No.2 and 3 are required to pay. However, such a stand taken by the respondents No.2 and 3 cannot...
R.L. Manu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Smt. A.R.Manu / R.L.Manu versus State of MP and otheRs.Writ Petition Nos.11869/2012(S) & 13162/2012(S).04.10.2012. Shri P.N.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the respondents. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. Petitioner Smt. A.R.Manu, in W.P.No.11869/2012(S) is working as an ANM in Government District Hospital, Raisen and vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, she has been transferred from Raisen to District Harda and challenging the transfer order she has approached this Court. Similarly, petitioner Shri R.L.Manu, in W.P.No.13162/2012(S).is working as a Non-Medical Assistant in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Raisen and vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, he has also been transferred to District Harda and he has challenged the same on various grounds. Records indicate that earlier also when both the petitioners were transferred, they approached this Court in various writ petitions and at that point of time whenever th...
Bharati Saran Garg Vs. Om Prakash Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
M.A.No.1816/2012 04.10.2012 Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This is defendant's appeal against the order dated 18.5.2012 whereby the plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and the defendant has been restrained from alienating the suit property. On bare perusal of the impugned order, it is gathered that plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and injunction that the suit property is a property of HUF but the defendant/appellant is disputing this proposition. Plaintiffs have also filed an application for issuance of temporary injunction praying that till the suit is decided the defendant should not alienate the suit property. The defendant/appellant refuted the averments made in the application by filing reply. The learned Trial Court before whom the discretion vests while exercising discretion came to hold that in the earlier suit wherein the present appellant/defendant was also a party it has been so...
- ‹ Prev
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- Next ›
- Last »