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.
Ravivansh Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.7966/09. 26.11.2012 Shri D.P.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the State. Having heard on I.A.No.11439/11, petitioners application for early disposal of this petition. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and the petition is taken up for consideration. With the consent of the parties the same has been heard for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without challenging the any specific order of any authority but has been filed for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as per policy/circular issued by the State Govt., in lieu of Acquisition of land with respect of Ban Sagar Project. In the couRs.of arguments, I have found that the with respect of the dispute raised in this petition the representation Annexure-P-5 of the petitioner is still pending fo...
Santram Singh Vs. Sunil Johar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.10019/2012 26.11.2012 Shri Mahendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.2012, (Ann. P-5) passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Maihar, district Satha in Co.No.16-A /12 whereby his application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC for appropriate direction to the respondent plaintiff to produce the original partition deed has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued by the petitioner's counsel for admission and allowing this petition. In support of such arguments he also referred his plaint and written statement of the respondents placed on record but in view of averments of written statements in which the respondents defendants have not stated anywhere that they are in possession of such original document of partition of the year 1958 and also in the light of such obser...
Bharat Choudhari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 W.P.No.19742/2012 Bharat Choudhari versus State of M.P.& ORS.26.11.2012 Heard Shri P.S.Tomar learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are not taking any action inspite of orders passed by the competent authority of the Municipal Council and others to close down the bar and non-vegetarian restaurant being run by respondent no.6 beside the Shiv temple and the girls school in the residential locality as a result of which it is not safe for the residents or the students of the girls school as fights and nuisance is regularly created by the customers after drinking. It is further submitted that the respondent Food Officer of the Municipal Council have processed the matter against the respondent no.6 but are not taking any action against respondent no.6 as a result of which the illegality continues to be perpetuated. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the...
Matuklal and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.47/1998 Matuklal & 4 Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellants : Shri Siddharth Datt, Adv. Counsel for the resp./State : Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (26.11.2012) The appellants have been convicted under Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of amount of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months by the impugned judgment dated 23 r d December, 1997 passed in Sessions Trial No.169/1995 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi.2. The prosecution case is that on 10.9.1995 at 8.30 p.m., the dispute ensued among the victim Rajlal and the accused person...
Ramkumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Ramkumar Verma versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19825 26. 11.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is subsequently holding the post of Head Master of Government Girls Middle School Krishnagar Pawai, District Panna. Grievance of petitioner is that vide order dated 12.11.2012 passed by the District Education Officer charge of Block Education Officer Pawai is granted to respondent No.5. It is stated that respondent No.5 is junior to petitioner and in a circular issued by the State Government on 7.9.2011, as contained in Annexure P-2, it is clearly stipulated that charge of such post be given to seniormost person. Interalia contending that petitioner is senior to respondent No.5, inspite thereof charge has not been granted to petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition. After representation in this regard submitted had fallen on deaf eaRs.referring to order passed under similar circumsta...
Omprakash Shrivastava Vs. Narayan Nagar Kalyan Parishad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.22081/11. 26.11.2012 Shri Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice against admission as well as of I.A.No.15413/11, an application for grant of stay, returnable within six weeks, be issued to the respondents. Necessary steps along with requisite of the registered post in this regard be taken within three working days failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition the operation of the impugned order of the appellate Court Annexure-P-1 is hereby stayed. Simultaneously in the interest of justice the authorities are directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of the disputed property as it exists today. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Vinod Kumar Chouksey Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.8360/2012 (V.K.Chouksey versus U.O.I.& ors.) 26.11.2012 Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's review application filed by him against the order of rejection dated 28.10.2010, dismissing his appeal, by which the respondent authorities have refused to renew the licence issued to the petitioner for Rail Travel Service Agents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the review application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith copy of the petition on the respondent authorities within 15 days, the said authority shall consider an...
Sudhir Pratap Singh (Baghel) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
sudhir pratap singh versus state 1 W.P.No.20067/2011 26/11/2012 Ku. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P/1 dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, Shahdol, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is son of Late Shri Jai Singh Baghel who was working as a Gangman in the office of Collector, Land Revenue Records, Shahdol. Late Shri Jai Singh Baghel died in harness on 31.7.2008 and after his death he left behind his wife, three daughters and his son namely the petitioner. It seems that when the cause of action arose for claiming compassionate appointment in the year 2008 petitioner was a minot and therefore, petitioner's mother made an application for grant of compassionate appointment. However, as she was not qualified even for appointment on a Class IV post, she was granted an amount of R...
Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
W.P.No.19287/2012 (S.K.Pandey versus State of M.P.& ors.) 26.11.2012 Heard Shri Bhupendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the police authorities are not investigating in to the complaint of the petitioner properly and not making respondent Nos.7 and 8 as accused, who have been named by the petitioner in his statement and in the complaint before the police authorities. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to look into the complaint filed the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon them by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the p...
Dashrath Singh Chandrawanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Dashrath Singh Chandravanshi & Anr versus State of MP & OtheRs.26.11.2012. Smt. Sudha Gautam for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State/respondents. Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents, to consider their cases for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. Records indicate that petitioners participated in the process of selection and in various periods between 1996-98, they were granted appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. However, grievance of the petitioners not is that with the passage of time they have not been appointed even though they have cleared the selection process and their names appear in the select list. Respondents inspite of being notices have not filed any reply and more than two years have passed. Records indicate that representations and appeals filed by the petitioners are alrea...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »