Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Shivakant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Shivakant Tiwari & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19708/2012 26/11/2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State Government. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 15/09/09 by which the State Govt. has decided to close down the Library and Community Centres running in various villages. Questions involved in these writ petitions and tenability of similar action has already been considered and decided by this Court by a common order passed in W.P.No.590/2011(s).W.P.14312/2011(s).W.P.12477/2009 (s) W.P.17/2010 (s) and W.P.No.17445/2010 (s) on 15.9.2011. After considering similar prayer, the following directions were issued by this Court :- "Accordingly, taking note of the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals as indicated hereinabove, all these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions:- Respondents are directed to take st...
Raghunandan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
M.Cr.C.No.14913/2012 26.2.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. This is the second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. FiRs.application was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.13446/2012. The applicants are in custody since 2.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.126/2012 registered at P.S.Harpalpur District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant no.1, Raghunandan Mishra is father-in-law, applicant no.2 Usha Mishra is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 Ravindra Kumar Mishra is brother-in-law of deceased Vandana @ Rani. There is general allegations against these applicants that they committed cruelty on her and demand dowry from her parents. Charge sheet ...
Smt. Niranjana Pateria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.7071 / 2010 Smt. Niranjana Pateria Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & two others ______________________________________________ Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K.Samaiya and Shri Shailendra Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent/Housing Board. PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (27-11-2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the unprecedented and unreasonable increase in the price of the flat allotted to the petitioner in Satyamev Jayate Parisar, Tahsil Compound, Jabalpur, by the respondents.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Housing Board floated a scheme in the name of Satyamev Jayate Parisar. proposing to construct and sell three bed room, hall, kitchen and two bedroom, hall, kitchen flats by notice published in the newspaper, dated 24-4-2004. The price of the flats were ranging from Rs. 6.3 lac to 7.90 lac depending upon their size ...
M/S Suryavansham Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.19185/12. 27.11.2012 Shri S.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondent no.1 & 2-State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondent no.2 Collector to consider and adjudicate his pending application for prospective license in respect of laterite mine. In additiona to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to such authority to consider and decide his representation Annexuure-P-2 is also made. State counsel did not have any objection if the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure-P-2 on some early date within some time bound schedule. In view of the aforesaid, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side and without expressing any opinio...
Jabalpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Priyamvada Sinha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR R.P. No.501/2012 Jabalpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Priyamvada Sihna and another Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel with Shri Anuj Agrawal, advocate. For the respondents : Shri Ravi Ranjan, advocate. ORDER (27.11.2012) This is an application for review of the order passed by this court in W.P. No.7607/08 dated 12.08.2010 wherein this court had decided the writ petition filed by the respondents in the following terms:-9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, specifically the documents filed by the respondent itself which indicate that the land of the petitioners of khasra nos. 37/1, 38/1 and 57/1, possession was taken over by the respondent/J.D.A. without being acquired or being included in the acquisition proceedings and that in similar situation, the respondent/J.D.A. has returned land for land of equal area to the affected persons and that the 2 re...
Santosh Sullere Vs. Smt. Saroj Sullere
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.18674/2012 27.11.2012 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2012, (Ann. P-11) passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhatarpur in Succession case No.06/2012 whereby their joint application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC permitting them to join such proceeding has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments in view of findings given by the trial court in the impugned order alongwith observation which has been made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.R.No.470/2010 vide order dated 19.1.2012, (Ann. P-8).on making certain query from the petitioneRs.counsel regarding locus standi of the petitioners in the impugned succession case and pursuant to that entertainability of this petition on which instead to argue further in the matter on admission he seeks permission to w...
Guljar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Cr.R.No.1689/2012 27.11.2012 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pramod Chaurasia, PL for the State. Heard. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur whereby charge under Sections 294, 506-II and 306 of IPC has been framed against him. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that it is alleged against the applicant that on 15.1.2012, initially applicant abused, beaten and threatened Dhaniram (deceased) when he was working in the field. It is further alleged that applicant along with his son again came to the house of Dhaniram and threatened him that he will kill him and told that today he will remain alive or they will remain alive. In the aforesaid circumstances, Dhaniram committed suicide by consuming sulfas pills. He has been rushed to the hospital but could not be saved. Initially a crime was registered and after recording evi...
Habib Vs. Western Coal Field Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.12383/2009 Habib -Versus- Western Coalfield LTD.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondents. ORDER (27.11.2012) 1: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking to challenge the validity of order dated 9.3.2009 (Annx.P/7).by which the petitioner is communicated that he would be retiring on 30.6.2009, in accordance to the date of birth recorded in NEIS data and the retiral dues would be paid to him. For the said purposes, the petitioner is called upon to file relevant documents. It is contended that the date of birth of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned to be 1.7.1949, whereas according to the petitioner, the date of birth recorded in his statutory service record was 1.7.1953. The petitioner contends that he is being prematurely retired against which he has made a...
Smt. Vandana Modi Vs. the Principal Secretary Mineral Resources Depart ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.19092/12. 27.11.2012 Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- (i) Pass necessary and appropriate orders to quash the notice no.F-2-171/2008/12/1 dated 02.11.2012 ordering fresh hearing for grant of mineral concession in the impugned area; (ii) Direct the respondent to comply with and give effect to the Order of the Honble High Court of M.P.dated 13.07.2012 by issung writ of mandamus; (iii) Pass necessary orders to bar holding of fresh hearing as fixed for 19.11.2012 or any other date as may be fixed by the respondent State Government as the impugned area already stands granted to the petitioner; (iv) Pass necessary and appropriate order/direction to bar the respondent from acting in any manner prejudicial to the interest and rights of the petitioner as accrued and as upheld by the ...
Ram Sajivan Sahu Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Patwa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.18986/12. 27.11.2012 Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv.for the State-respondent no.12. Heard on the question of admission. Keeping in view his submission that the present petitioner was impleaded as defendant no.9 in the trial Court as evident from the copy of the plaint (Annexure-P-2) and in his presence the application of the respondents/plaintiffs filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-P-3) on which the respondents/plaintiffs filed the impugned M.A.No.03/12, but the present petitioner was not impleaded as party in the same and without considering such aspect and without extending the opportunity of hearing so also in his absence by allowing such appeal of the respondents no.1 & 2/plaintiffs, the aforesaid order of the trial Court Annexure-P-3 was set aside and by allowing the application of the respondent no.1 & 2 the impugned interlocu...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »