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.
Shri Bauaa Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.20253/2011 21.11.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. It is letter petition, which was registered on a letter sent by petitioner Bauaa Kol to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the letter, it was alleged that his wife, who went with his two nephews had not returned and he was not aware about the whereabouts of his wife. In this case various directions were issued since 29.11.2011 to trace out the wife of petitioner and to produce her before this Court, but it appears that in spite of various efforts made by the Police the wife of petitioner Bauaa Kol could not be traced. Apart from this during the pendency of this petition the petitioner Bauaa Kol has died on 16.11.2011. It appears that nobody is there to take care of the case, but during hearing of the case it revealed that there are bank balance of both Bauaa Kol and his wife namely Rambai. On 25.7.2012 when the matter was placed before this Court, we directed thus :- 25.7.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for th...
Rajesh Kumar Mistry Vs. Shri Ajatshatru Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Rajesh Kumar Mistry versus Ajay Satru Shrivastava Con.C.No.1822/2012 21.11.2012 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter-alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 9.1.2012 in W.P.No.290/2012 have not been complied with, this contempt application has been filed. Petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking regularization of service on the post of Junior Auditor. The said writ petitioner of the petitioner was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. The claim is considered and rejected vide Annexure-C6 on 20th of September, 2012. Again petitioner is before this Court challenging the rejection mainly on the ground that the consideration has not been made properly and certain observations made in the earlier writ petition have not been taken note of. This Court on the earlier occasion disposed of the writ petition on the very fiRs.day of hearing without notice to the respondents and the on...
Arjun Ahir Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
arjun ahir & others versus Bank of India 1 W.P.No.1003/2012 21/11/2012 Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners participated in a process of selection undertaken by the respondent Bank for appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari. Documents filed along with the writ petition shows that the selection process was conducted and on the basis of process initiated, petitioners were selected and communications were made to them for undergoing appropriate medical test to enable them to join. Thereafter orders were also issued but the grievance of the petitioners are that when they have reported for joining no action is taken and they are not being permitted to join in pursuance to the selection made. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioners to joining. Accordingly, finding the same to be correct on the basis of documents available on record, for the present interest of justice would be met in case ...
Mannu Lal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
mannulal ahirwar versus State W.P.No.19542/2012 21-11-2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Patwari in Patwari Halka No.1 Kaithokar. It is stated by incorrectly mentioning the patwari halka, the State Government has transferred the petitioner from Nowgaon to the office of Collector, Panna. Inter alia pointing out various difficulties due to education of his children and the fact that his transfer out of district is not proper, this writ petition has been filed. However, record indicates seeking reconsideration of the matter petitioner has already represented to the State Government and the matter is still pending. In view of the above, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, for the present State Government and the competent authority is directed to decide the matter in accordance to law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of th...
Rakhlal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.15127/2012 (Rakhlal Yadav Vs.State of M.P.& ors.) 21.11.2012 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The missing person Rita @ Archana is present in person. She states that she had been forcibly taken away by her husband against her will but is not free and is staying with her parents on her own free will. In view of the aforesaid statement of Rita @ Archana, made before this court in person, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition which is, accordingly, disposed of by recording the aforesaid statement. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Mahendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vaish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Mahendra Kumar Shukla & Anr. versus Rajneesh Vaish and ORS.Con.C.No.1487/2011 21/11/2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi with Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for Respondents. Inter-alia contending that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and benefit accruing out of the order passed on 13.4.2011 passed in W.P.No.5544/2011(s) has not been granted, this contempt application has been filed. Petitioner's claim for grant of promotion on the post of Upper Division Teacher (Science) was rejected. Various writ petitions were filed by various similarly situated persons and all the writ petitions were disposed of in the light of an earlier judgment rendered by the State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Indraveer Singh Tomar versus State of M.P.& Others 2004(2) MPHT 3 (NOC).Case of the petitioner was also disposed of in identical terMs.not it is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the directions issued, the claim is ...
Alsia Pardhi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1....W.A.No.1170 of 12 Alsia Pardhi & another Central Bureau of Investigation 21.11.2012 Shri Raghvendra Kumar, Counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.8.2012 in w.P.10468 of 2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was disposed of with certain directions/liberty. The facts of the case are that a public interest litigation was filed as W.P.15189/2007 which was finally disposed of with a direction to investigate the matter by the C.B.I.The C.B.I.had conducted investigation and thereafter filed a charge-sheet before the Special Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur on 30.3.2012. The contentions of the appellants before the Single Bench were that the complete charge sheet was not filed and the offence which revealed during the investigation was also not taken care of by the C.B.I.and the investigation was incomplete. The learned Single Judge considered the matter and found that after the investigation charge sheet has...
Raju Pandey @ Rajendra Pandey Vs. the Superintendent of Jail
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No.19117/2012 (Raju Pandey @ Rajendra Pandey versus The Superintendent of Jail Rewa and another) 21.11.2012 Heard Shri A.S.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking release from jail on account of the fact that he has been granted bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No.2650/2007 on 07.09.2012. It is however, observed that the petitioner has filed a criminal revision against his conviction in a subsequent case which is pending before this court and which has been registered as Criminal Revision No.1979/2012 and in such circumstances the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to move an application, if so advised, in the pending criminal revision. In view of the pendency of the Criminal Revision No.1979/12, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application in the pending revision, if so advised. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Mukesh Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
mukesh kumar versus State W.P.No.19134/2012 21-11-2012 Shri Surya Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak . It has been held by this Court consistently in various cases that in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak the provisions of Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 are applicable and therefore, petitioner is required to take recouRs.to the remedy available under the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available as per the statutory provision of the scheme, this petition is disposed of. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Nishant Gautam (Nishu) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 W.P.No.8547/2012 Nishant Gautam versus State of M.P.& ORS.21.11.2012 Shri R.N.Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Lalwani learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5. Shri Pradeep Naveria learned counsel for respondent no.6. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that his wife Harmeet Kaur Bhatia has been abducted by her parents respondent nos.4 & 5 and has been kept under forceful confinement. The petitioner has sought a direction for the custody of his wife and for prosecution of respondent nos.4 & 5. On notices being issued, Harmeet Kaur Bhatia has appeared personally before this Court. She states that she has not been kept forcefully by her parents and that she is living with them on her own free will. She further states that she does not wish to live with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement of Harmeet Kaur Bhatia, made before this court in person, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition which is, accordingly, dispo...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »