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.
Smt. Shardadevi Vs. Bhoopesh Alias Bhoopendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.18733/12. 26.11.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice against admission as well as of I.A.No.14447/12, 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 it is observed that whatever construction carried out by the respondents over the disputed place, the same shall be treated subject to any interim or final order of this petition. The interim prayer shall be considered on the merits after receiving the service report of the said notices. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Smt.Shashi Namdeo Vs. the Presidisng Officer
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 ...
Shivcharan Batti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Shivcharan Bhatti versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19820 26. 11.2012: Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Project Ranger in Ukwa Sub-area District Balaghat and by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 19.11.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Baihar Sub-area in the same District Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner had joined at Ukwa sub-area only on July, 2011 when order Annexure P-2 was passed and not his transfer within 1 year and three months is unsustainable. Records indicate that petitioner has only transferred from one sub-area to another in the same district Balaghat, the grounds raised by the petitioner has to be considered and decision taken by the competent authority. That apart petitioner has challenged the transfer merely on the ground of validity of transfer policy. In view of above, the competent authorit...
Smt. Sabra Khatoon Vs. Khadeeja Sharif
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
M.A.No.3163/2012 26.11.2012 Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed against that part of the impugned order dated 5.9.2012 by which the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.345-A/2012 has rejected the application of the plaintiffs/appellants whereby they have sought the relief against the defendants not to interfere in their possession. On going through the impugned order it is gathered that the appellants have filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect to the land the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit. The suit has been filed on the basis of title. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owner of the suit property having possession over it. The defendants 1 to 3 have sold the property to several defendants for which they have no right. Hence, an application for issuance of temporary injunction has also be...
Jumman Tailors (Dead) Vs. Smt. Mainuna Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 W.P.No.16366 o26. 11.2012 Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendants, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.12 passed by the II Addl. Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge Class-2, Khandwa in Co.No.22-A/09 whereby their application filed under Order 16 rule 1(A) read with section 151 of the CPC (Annex.P/7) to call some witness along with the record of Y.B.Chouhan College of Pharmacy run by Moulana Ajad Educational Trust, Aurangabad to prove the employment condition of MRS.Mariya Safi, has been dismissed on the ground that in the lack of any copies of such documents which have been obtained from the office of the aforesaid Trust or the College, no such permission to call the witness could be given. In such order it was also observed that the petitioners may prove such thing by presenting the copies of such papers after obtaining the same from t...
Motilal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Motilal Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19295 26. 11.2012: Shri Avdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Asst. Grade II in Tehsil Office Beohari, District Shahdol and by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 20.4.2012 he has been transferred to the office of District Education Officer Shahdol. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that if petitioner is shifted from Beohari, no person is available to perform the work undertaken by the petitioner and the Tehsildar vide Annexure P-3 recommended for cancelling the transfer due to non-availability of suitable hand to represent the petitioner. The grounds raised for cancelling the transfer are to be considered by the Collector concerned and decision taken. On such consideration judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Accordingly directing the Collector to decide the review ...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Ramlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Writ Petition No.18791/2012 26.11.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.9.2012, (Ann. P-8) passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Tikamgarh in MJ.No.05/2012, whereby his application filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2005, (Ann. P-2).passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-I, Tikamgarh in Co.No.301-A/04 has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, I gathered the information from the record as well as from the submission of the counsel that subsequent to passing the aforesaid judgment and decree, (Ann. P-2) the same was appealed by the concerning defendants of the suit under Section 96 of the CPC and by dismissing such appeal such decree has been upheld against which Second Appeal No.323/07 is pending before this court for consideratio...
Jaihind @ Jaihinder 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.390/1998 Jai Hind @ Jaihinder Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellant : Shri Mohd. Ali, Advocate. Counsel for the resp./State : Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (26.11.2012) By the impugned judgment dated 22.1.1998 passed in Special Case No.123/1997 by the Special Judge, Sagar, the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The prosecution story is that complainant Badibahu (PW-3) on 10.7.1997 at about 3 p.m. had gone to her field which is situate adjoining to the land of the appellant, to cut crops sown by her. The appellant who was present there tried to cut crops. Thereupon, the complainant lodged a protest. The appellant assaulted the complainant by a lathi on elbow of the left hand. The matter was reported to the police....
Smt. Chainraja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
MCrC No.10303/2012. 26.11.12 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.K.Chourasia, Govt. Adv.for the respondent-State. Arguments heard. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.224/11 registered at Police Station Amanganj, Distt. Panna, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC. At the relevant point of time, applicant nos.1 and 2 were working as Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Majhgawan whereas applicant no.3 was posted as Sub- Engineer in Janpad Panchayat Gunnour. Allegations against the applicants, in short, are that they were involved in cheating and forgery of records to facilitate misappropriation of a total sum of Rs.11,68,645/- allotted to the Panchayat for construction of Wells under the Kapil Dhara Scheme. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated despite the fact that all the Wells were duly constructed. Acc...
Savitri Kunjam Vs. Smt. Anita Maravi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
M.C.C.No.1290/2012 23.11.2012 Heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.6004/11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel appearing for the petitioner could not understand the peremptory order, compliance was not made within the stipulated period which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for non- compliance of the peremptory order . The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.6004/11 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.6004/11. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »