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.
Narendra Singh Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11331/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
Amitabh Acharya Vs. Smt.Sapna Acharya @ Sapna Chatterjee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 R.P.No.663/2012 Amitabh Acharya Smt.Sapna Acharya 3.10.2012 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Counsel for petitioner. Shri R.K.Sanghi, Counsel for respondent. This review petition is directed against an order dated 6.7.2012 in FiRs.Appeal No.687/2010 by which we directed the petitioner to make payment of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. This order has been sought to be reviewed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of such higher amount and this amount may be reduced to the tune of Rs.2,500/-. We have considered the argument. After going through the order dated 6.7.2012 and the record of FiRs.Appeal No.687/2010, we find that no case is made out for review of the order. The order has been passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and does not suffer from any infirmity. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petiti...
Kashinath and ors. Vs. Bajirao and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.209 /1996 Kashinath Vs. Bajirao Counsel for the appellant : Shri Faiyaz Khan, Adv. No.3 (i) to (iii) : Counsel for the appellants No.1, 4 & 5 : None Counsel for the respondent : None present Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (03.10.2 012) This appeal is by the plaintiff, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the original plaintiffs Malan Bai and Daya Bai were entitled to a share in the suit property after death of their father Shyamu ?.2. Whether after death of their mother, they had a share in the property inherited by their mother u/s.15 of Hindu Succession Act ?.3. Whether the finding of fact recorded by Lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court that the original plaintiff Malan Bai had received Rs.7,000/- is perverse ?..2. The original plaintiff had filed the suit on the ground...
Jp.Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.4719/2011 03.10.2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 4. Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3. It is seen from the record that the pay fixation of the petitioner after his promotion in terms of the directions issued by this Court has not been produced for perusal of this Court. It appears that the pay fixation of the petitioner is not rightly done by the respondents No.2 and 3 and that is why they are shirking from their responsibility of placing that document before this Court for perusal. In view of the aforesaid, let the pay fixation of the petitioner be done after issuance of the order of promotion in this respect by the District Treasury Officer, Jabalpur and a report after due approval of the said fixation of the pay be placed before this Court for perusal on the next date of listing. List in the week commencing 19th November, 2012. It is made c...
Pooranlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Cr. A. No.3284/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.3284/1999 Pooranlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri P. Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 3rd day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.10.1999 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge Waraseoni, District Balaghat in S.T. No.155/96, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for six months' R.I. with fine of `250/-. In default of payment, he was to undergo for one month's ...
Damari Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
1 Domari Baiga Vs. State HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.16646/2011 (s) DOMARI BAIGA VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents-State. Shri N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.6. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 3-10-2012 ) Challenging the order dated 6.9.2011 Annexure P/9 passed by the Collector, Umariya in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Pali, District Umariya, this writ petition has been filed. 2 Domari Baiga Vs. State 2. An advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat vide Annexure P/1 on 3.9.2007 calling for eligible candidates to submit their application for appointment to the post of Pa...
Aditya Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.4130/2010 03.10.2012 Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioners and certain recoveries have been ordered against them on account of cancellation of orders of Kramonnati. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioners and this was done. The benefit was extended to them, but later on saying that such a circular is not applicable, recovery has been ordered and, therefore, they are required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus The State of M.P.& others [Writ Petition No.824/2004(S)].decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. A return has been filed by the respondents contending that such a b...
Saiyed Shakir Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.2880/06 (s) 3/10/12 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the submissions made by the respondents in I.A.No.5496/12 indicating that the A.C.R.s which have been challenged by the petitioner will not affect his promotion, petitioner should not have any grievance not as the so called impugned A.C.R.s of the year 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 as contained in Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-7 as per respondents' own showing will not adversely affect his promotion. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous because of the fact that the C. R.s of the petitioner for the year 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 will not adversely affect his promotion. Keeping in view the aforesaid, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Ramjan Khan Pathan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15679/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 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 circular da...
Radharaman Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.11325/2012 03.10.2012 Pleadings are complete. Be listed for hearing on 29.11.2012. Ad interim writ:- The controveRs.involved in this case is in respect of imposition of Luxury Tax on the services provided by the petitioner in a Beauty Parlour. It is submitted that as the petitioner is already paying Service Tax, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of Luxury Tax. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 are akin to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty & Advertisement Tax Act, validity of which had already been affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.10148/2009 (Tata Sky Limited versus State of M.P.& otheRs.on 20.08.2010, so the recovery in the present case may not be stayed. In reply to it, it was submitted by the petitioner that the decision of Tata Sky Limited is sub-judice before the Apex Court which is fixed for hearing in the month of Nove...
- ‹ Prev
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- Next ›
- Last »