Madhya Pradesh Court November 2012 Judgments
Transport Nagar Vyapari Sangh Samiti Jabalpour Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19340/2012 Transport Nagar Vyapari Sangh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner clearly states that he is not pressing the issue of cancellation of the plots in respect of 198 allottees or other individual issues before this Court. He, however, submits that the present petition is being filed only at the behest of those members of the petitioner association who have already been allotted plots and have been granted lease in Transport Nagar, Chandalbhata, Jabalpur. It is submitted that the aforesaid lease holders have approached the corporation authorities for providing proper civic amenities, removal of encroachment, etc.and for finalizing their documents so that they can undertake construction of their plots and commence business but no steps in that regard have been taken by the corporation authorities. In view of the aforesaid, ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Chaubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.20045 / 2012 (Surendra Kumar Chaubey..Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 30-11-2012 Heard Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to register a FiRs.Information Report against the respondents No.8 to 10 and take suitable action against them. The Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 54.has categorically laid down that the remedy of petitioner in such circumstances is to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure as specified therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held by the Supreme Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19133/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 27.9.2012, (Ann. P-7) passed by respondent No.4, Tahsildar Rahatgaon, district Harda in Revenue case No.98-A/68/11-12 and the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the SDO, Timarni in Revenue Appeal No.1-A/68/12-13 whereby the aforesaid earlier order of Tahsildar passed under Section 248 of M.P.Land Revenue Code directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment has been affirmed. In the couRs.of arguments on admission on asking the petitioneRs.counsel that in view of availability of forum of second appeal to challenge the impugned order before the court of Commissioner Revenue under the provision of M.P.Land Revenue Code to the petitioneRs.how this writ petition filed unde...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Cr. Appeal No.2658/11. 30.11.2012 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Jitendra Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.20614/12, a repeat application on behalf of appellant for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his earlier fiRs.application in this regard was dismissed vide order dated 16.1.2012 as withdrawn and his second application was dismissed on dated 20.4.2012 on merits by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after suffering the substantial part of the awarded jail sentence and the present I.A is preferred under such liberty. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) (B) of N.D.P.S.Act for RI five years with fine of Rs.3000/-. As alleged he was found in possession of 3.900 KG, the contraband substance the Ganja. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the period suffered by the appellant in jail initially in the judi...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.16473/2012 Ghanshyam Lodhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri D.D.Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files an application requesting for grant of parole form, his prayer may be considered by the concerned authority. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with an observation that in case the petitioner files an application praying for issuance of parole form, his application may be considered and appropriate action thereon may be taken in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Mohan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.19152/20130. 11.2012 Shri Ajay Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that when fiRs.Kramonnati was granted, the pay of the petitioner was revised and since again he was not granted promotion for 12 yeaRs.he was granted second Kramonnati. After the grant of second Kramonnati, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered and he was promoted on the next higher post, which was carrying the pay scale equivalent to fiRs.Kramonnati granted to the petitioner. not since he has been promoted on lesser pay scale than the pay scale of second Kramonnati, the pay of the petitioner is reduced and recovery is being ordered. This Court has taken note of such circumstances in the case of Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.W.P.No.379/2009(S).decided on 19.07.2011, wherein it has been considered by this Court that ...
Tag this Judgment!Hansial Vs. Smt. Jagmati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19165/12. 30.11.2012 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Jogelekar, learned P.L.for respondent no.2- State. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure-P-7) passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Waidhan, District Singrauli in Civil Original Suit No.52-A/2010, whereby allowing the application of the respondents/defendants filed under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, their unregistered deed dated 15.6.1964 has been impounded and directed to sent to the Stamp Collector to assess the stamp with duty penalty on such document, to pay the same by the private defendants respondents. In the couRs.of arguments on admission on making query from the counsel what error has been committed by the trial Court in impounding and sending the impugned document to the Stamp Collector by allowing the aforesaid application to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kharya Cheritable Society Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
R.P.No.812/2012 30.11.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The applicant has filed this application seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4158/2010 decided on 26.07.2012 praying for a clarification that this court while deciding the writ petition regarding change of the name in the marksheet has not decided any issue of title in favour of respondent No.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the considered opinion that the application filed by the applicant is totally misconceived as this court while deciding that the father of respondent No.2, Aarti Khard alias Arti Kharya was Badri Prasad Kharya has clearly observed in paragraph 7 of the order passed in the writ petition that this court is not going into or required to adjudicate upon the rights of either of the parties in the property of Badri Prasad Kharya. In view of the aforesaid observations of this court,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Krishnavati Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 MCC No.1270/2012 30.11.2012 Heard Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, on the application for condonation of delay as well as on admission. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.201/2011 dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.06.12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that this Court on 20.06.2012 had issued a peremptory order granting two weeks time to clear the default but the previous counsel could not remove the default within the time stipulated by this Court and as such the aforesaid petition came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the dismissal of the petition and as such could not file the application for restoration within time. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the delay be condoned and the application for restoration deserve to be allowed. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sapna Manjhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19411/2012 Smt. Sapna Manjhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Vidya Bhushan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction by the police authorities; the Lokayukt and several other authorities in respect of the illegality committed by respondent nos.5 & 6. It is, however, apparent from a perusal of the petition that the petitioner has not impleaded any of these authorities as respondents in the petition. In the circumstances, in case the petitioner wants criminal prosecution against the respondent nos.5 & 6, he must pursue the application/complaint filed by him before the Lokayukt or the police authorities and in the absence of the same being made respondents in the present petition, no direction by this Court can be issued. It needs no emphasis to state that the petitioner would also be at liberty to take up the other remedies available to him under law for mit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »