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.
Raj Pratap Tiwari Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19549/2012 Raj Pratap Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the respondent authorities be directed to declare the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chandouhi Dol, Tehsil Majholi, District Sidhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of the aforesaid village in which respondent no.4 Jagya Narayan was the returned candidate. It is stated that the petitioner being aggrieved by the election of the respondent no.4 had filed an election petition which has been allowed by the election tribunal on 7.8.2012 setting aside the election of respondent no.4. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid order of the election tribunal, the respondent authorities are not declaring the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchaya...
Laxman Adopted Vs. Gulab Bai, Th:lrs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19202/12. 30.11.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, 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 17.9.2012 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Bina, District Sagar, in Civil Original Suit No.210-A/2004, whereby his application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC for dismissal of the impugned suit on the ground that with respect of the same subject matter, the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was withdrawn without taking any liberty to file the suit. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the aforesaid copy of the application and the impugned order. It is apparent fact that such application has been filed before the trial Court by the petitioner without annexing the order of the earlier suit whereby, his earlier suit...
Babu Singh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19098/2012 30.11.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioners and certain recoveries have been ordered against them on account of cancellation of orders of Kramonnati. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioners and this was done. The benefit was extended to them, but later on saying that such a circular is not applicable, recovery has been ordered and, therefore, they are required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus The State of M.P.& others [Writ Petition No.824/2004(S)].decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. A return has been filed by the respondents contending that such ...
Mohammad Firoz Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.13231/2012 30.11.2012 Shri D. Chandramalik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard on IA No.15375/12, an application for taking annexed documents on record. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and annexed papers are taken on record. Having heard on the question of admission in view of amended provision of Section 49 of M.P.Land Revenue Code by the Amendment Act 2011, after perusing the order of SDO, Ann. P-1, in the available scenario, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, notice against admission as well as IA No.10712/12, stay application, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January 2013 be issued to the respondents, 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 and execution of the im...
Prahlad Vs. MubIn Ahmad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19095/2012 30.11.2012 Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar, in Co.12-A/11, whereby his application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the Commissioner's Report with respect of disputed premises as the same in dilapidated condition has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, I have perused the record. I have found that such application has been dismissed by the trial court stating that alongwith application no prima facie documentary evidence like the photograph, map or expert report has been filed by the petitioners and in the lack of it, it could no be said or deemed that the Commissioner Report is required at the initial stage of civil suit when the evide...
Ganga Mahila Swa Sahayta Samooh Majhauli Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19387/2012 Ganga Mahila Swa Sahayta Samooh & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the District Programme Officer, Sidhi has awarded the entire work to supply 'Poshan Aahar' to respondent no.7 contrary to the directions issued by the State Government wherein it has been directed that the work of supply of only two schools should be given to one institution. The petitioners submit that they have filed a representation before the Collector, Sidhi but the same have not been decided till date and, therefore, he be directed to do so. Shri Puneet Shroti, the learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the representation filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is dispose...
Smt. Kripa Awasthy Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.18599/12. 30.11.2012 Shri B.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharada Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondent no.1 to 5-State 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 the appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the respondent no.2 Avar Secretary, Revenue Department, State of M.P., whereby the Collector Hoshangabad has been directed to comply the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the SDO (Annexure-P-4) In addition to it, the prayer for restraining the respondents from alienating or changing the nature of the disputed land earmarked and left for Garden, is also made. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the papeRs.it appears that impugned land is belonging to private person i.e.respondent no.6 and whatever litigation had taken place in the matter earlier in any of them, the present petitioner was not th...
Proposed Brahmgir Maharaj Machhali Palan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Sat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.17039/2012 Proposed Brahmgir Maharaj Machhali versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Abhishek Arzaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 8.8.2012, 17.8.2012 and another order of the same date i.e.17.8.2012 passed by the respondent no.5 Dy. Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, Khandwa, wherein the request of the petitioner to issue 'no objection certificate', to register the society and the objections for registering respondent no.7 have been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.6 Assistant Director, Fisheries refused to give 'no objection certificate' to the petitioner on the ground that he had to fiRs.obtain the same from the lessee of the tank concerned which is not required by the policy of the State. It is submitted that on account of refusal by the Assistant Director, Fisheries, the impugn...
Jugal Kishor Tekam (Gond) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19967 / 2012 [Jugal Kishore Tekam (Gond) versus State of MP & others].30-11-2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State/respondent. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that that his name has not been included in the voter list as a result of which he has been deprived of contesting the Mandi election. It is pointed out by the learned Dy A.G.appearing for the State/respondents that the elections have already been notified on 19-11-2012 and, therefore, no cause for interference in the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision rendered in W.P.No.5371/2012, decided on 9-4-2012 wherein it has been held that the High Court should not interfere in an election process which has already been initiated, under Article, 226 of the Constitution of I...
Bhau Lal Lilhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.12312/20130. 11.2012 Ms.Neelima Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents-State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioner and certain recovery has been ordered against him on account of cancellation of order of Kramonnati. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner and this was done. The benefit was extended to him, but later on the same is withdrawn saying that such a circular is not applicable, therefore, he is required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus The State of M.P.& others [Writ Petition No.824/2004(S)].decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. After due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »