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.
Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :14939. of 2006(S) Vinot Kumar Shukla - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.P.Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, Counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 27/11/2012 Challenging the orders passed by the competent disciplinary authority respondent No.4 on 6.12.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service; order-dated 15.1.2005 passed by respondent No.3 appellate authority, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner; and, orders-dated 31.3.2005 and 1.7.2006, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1, rejecting the revision petition and the mercy appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. 2- Petitioner was holding the post of Cons...
Bhailal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.387/1998 Bhailal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellant : Shri S.P. Verma, Advocate. Counsel for the respondent : Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (27.11.2012) By the impugned judgment dated 28 t h January, 1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.50/1996, the appellant has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Badibahu was married with the appellant in the year 1996. In the night of 7.5.1996, the deceased was missing from her house. The appellant made a search however, he could not find her, thereafter, he lodged FIR on 11.5.1996. During course of the investigation, the body ...
Moolchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.18702/2012 27.11.2012 Shri R.K.Chille, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Subject to admission of this petition respondent No.4 is yet to be noticed. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the entire impugned proceeding of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is being conducted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to acquire the land of the petitioners in connection of some project of respondent no.5. In oral submission after taking me through the averments of the petition and placed papers on record alongwith the notification issued by the State of M.P.under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Ann. P-1).published in the Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper on 22.9.2012, the petitioneRs.counsel argued that in the available scenario such notification deserves to be quas...
Abdul Hafeez Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :1043. of 2004 Abdul Hafeez - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Gulab K. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 27/11/2012 Challenging the compulsory retirement ordered under Rule 42 of the MP Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Petitioner was appointed as a Sipahi vide order-dated 19.8.1980 Annexure P/1. He joined duties and finally vide order-dated 24.1.1997 Annexure P/3, he was confirmed in service retrospectively with effect from 1.2.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period of service, no adveRs.remarks were communicated to h...
Ashish Nayak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
1 W.P.No.19080/2012 Ashish Nayak versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.11.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. Shri G.R.Chandravanshi, Sub Inspector and Shri Ashok Rai, Head Constable, Police Station, Garha who are present before this Court, state that the missing corpus, who is the wife of the petitioner, has been recovered and has been handed over to the petitioner and that she is at present staying with the petitioner and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to oppose the statement made by the police personnels before this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous as no further orders in this regard is necessary. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
M/S Om Trading Corporation Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Writ Petition No.18683/2012 27.11.2012 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 and 8, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authority of respondents to continue the supply of electric energy to the petitioner- industry from the City Feeder as granted between the period 1985 to 2011. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel whether his pending representation dated 2.8.2011, (Ann. P-3) has been considered and decided by the concerning authority or in response of his legal notice, Annexure P-5, he is under receipt of any information from the concerning authority to resolve his dispute, on which he fairly submitted that no response has been given by any of the authorities on the representation or legal notice till today an...
Shambhu Yadav Vs. Teja Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
M.A.No.3154/2012 26.11.2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed against that part of the impugned order dated 20.9.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012 by which the plaintiff/appellant's application for issuance of temporary injunction has been dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit property is the ancestral property and because his father Teja Yadav has sold it to other defendants by executing several different sale deeds on the same date i.e.19.10.2011 debarring the plaintiff from the property, therefore, he has filed the present suit arraying the purchasers as well as his father as defendants. Learned counsel submits that plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute though it has been alienated by his father to several defendants. Learned counsel further submits that those sale deeds are void because they have been...
Devarshi Swa-sahayta Samooh Jamunihai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 W.P.No.19753/2012 Devarshi Swa-Sahayta Samooh versus State of M.P.& ORS.26.11.2012 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the effect that the respondent no.5 be removed from the post of Headmaster of Government Middle School, Jamunihai, Tehsil Nagoud, District Satna as well as to direct the respondent authorities not to force the petitioner to permit respondent no.6 to work as a Cook. From a perusal of the petition it is however clear that the matter is pending before the Zila Panchayat, Sidhi and that the petitioner has not approached the said authority by filing a representation not has any appeal or revision been filed against the order passed by the Zila Panchayat. In the circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to approach the...
Vyvasthapak, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs. Smt. Shashi Namdeo and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1. Smt. Shashi Namdeo versus The Presiding Officer, Satna and another 2. Vyavasthapak versus Smt. Shashi Namdeo and another. WRIT PETITION Nos.8502/2005(S) & 7235/2005(S).26.11.2012. In Writ Petition No.8502/2005(S).Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.K.Modh with Shri S.K.Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. In Writ Petition No.7235/2005(S).Shri T.K.Modh with Shri S.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Gupta for respondent No.1. ************************************** As challenge made in both these petitions are to an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satna in I.D.Case No.19/2003, directing for reinstatement of Smt. Shashi Namdeo without backwages, both these petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common order. Writ Petition No.8502/2005(S) has been filed by the employee concerned, challenging denial of backwages to her; and, Writ Petition No.7235/2005(S) has been filed by the employer challenging the reinstatement. From a ...
Smt.Praveen Kumari Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Smt. Praveen Kumar Pandey & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19829 26. 11.2012: Shri Sanjeev K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Considering the fact that the representation filed by petitioners Annexure P-4, with regard to permitting the petitioners to join duties in accordance to the order of appointment passed vide Annexure P-3 dated 17.2.2012, is pending consideration before the competent authority, the competent authority namely respondent No.4 is directed to look into the grievance of petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to working and posting of petitioner on the basis of appointment made. Respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified Co.of this order. However, if petitioners have any grievance with regard to action taken by respondent No.4, they may represent to respondent No.2, the District Education Officer and on the same...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »