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.
Ku. Ambika Vishwakarma Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
W.P.No.224/2012 20.11.2012 None for the petitioner. Shri M.K.Verma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.K.Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 prays time to file reply in the matter. Learned Govt. Advocate also prays a week's time to file reply. I.A.No.14389/12 for ad-interim relief. It is prayed for the petitioner that she may be permitted to appear in the examination of B. Pharma Course. As per Shri Verma, the examinations are scheduled from today i.e., 20.11.2012, while written examination would commence from 6.12.2012. Considering the aforesaid, we direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination which are scheduled from today and in the written examination scheduled from 6.12.2012. However, this permission shall be subject to further orders in the matter. Be listed for hearing in the 2nd week of December, 2012. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shr...
Dharmendra Chaoudhary Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.1591/1999) Mahendra Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1592/1999) Manohar Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1593/1999) Prem Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1594/1999) R.C. Burra Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1595/1999) Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1463/1998) Dharmendra Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1686/1998) Prem Singh Bisht 2 W.P. No.1591/1999 and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri , A.K. Pathak, Advocate and Shri K.C. Ghildayal Counsel for Respondents Shri, Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General O R D E R (20/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Whether a Deputy Superintendent of Police, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Police...
Narayan Prasad Sharma Vs. Raheshyam Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Narayan Prasad Sharma versus Shri Raheshyam Julaniya and OtheRs.20.11.2012. Shri L.N.Sakle for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the respondents. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 23.2.2011, in Writ Petition No.2943/2011, has not been complied with, this application has been filed. In the original writ petition, the only direction issued to the respondents that also without notice to them and without hearing them on the very fiRs.day, was to the effect that in the light of the law laid down in Writ Petition No.17747/2006(S) [Anil Rai versus State of MP and others].on 30.3.2010, benefit of the minimum of time scale of pay as per the post be granted to the petitioner. On a writ appeal being filed, the original order has been modified and the Division Bench of this Court has directed that the minimum of the time scale of pay should be granted. Now, from the return filed by the non-applicants and Annexure R/1 filed, it...
M.P.State Electricity Board Andanr. Vs. Brij Mohan Verma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P(S)No.3697/2004 M.P.State Electricity Board and otheRs.-Versus- Brij Mohan Verma & otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 ORDER ( .11.2012) 1: This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.3.2004, passed in Appeal No.244/99/MPIR by the State Industrial Court. It is contended that the services of the respondent No.1 were dispensed with by the petitioneRs.which order was assailed in Labour Court where an order was passed on 15.4.1998, allowing the claim of the respondent. A review application was filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court, but the said review application was dismissed. When the appeal was preferred against the original order passed by the Labour Court, the said appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. A writ petition was file...
Nand Kishore Ahirwar Vs. Raj Narayan Khare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Nand Kishore Ahirwar versus Shri Raj Narayan Khare. 20.11.2012. Shri Sumit Nema for the applicant. Shri R.K.Verma for the non-applicant. From the return filed by the non-applicant, it is seen that the non-applicant, who was Tehsildar Chhatarpur was transferred and, therefore, he could not take action. However, if the non-applicant has been transferred then the new Tehsildar, who has taken over charge on the post of Tehsildar Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur is required to take action, if not already done. In view of the above, for the present, without initiating any action, it is directed that in case the order passed by this Court on 25.9.2008, in W.P.No.11082/2008, has not been complied with till date, the present Tehsildar of Tehsil Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur, who was respondent No.3 in the original writ petition, shall take action and comply with the directions given within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, for t...
Gendalal and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1703/1996 Gendalal & 3 Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellants : None . Counsel for the respondent/State: Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (20.11.2 012) The appellant No.1 has been convicted for offences under Section 324 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellants No.2 to 4 have been convicted for offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for offences under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of amount of fine, the aforesaid appellants to undergo two months rigorous impr...
Sanjay Shukla Vs. Radheshyam Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Sanjay Shukla versus Shri Radheshyam Julaniya and otheRs.20.11.2012. Shri Vipin Yadav for the applicant. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the non-applicants. In view of the regularization ordered as is evident from Annexure R/1 dated 16.8.2012, for the present no further action is required to be taken in the matter. Accordingly, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting, he is granted liberty to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, this application stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Chaturi Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1425 o20. 11/2012 Shri Vijay Lakhera, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the State. I.A.No.18872/2012 for suspension of sentence and release on bail on behalf of appellant no.6-Siyaram. This is 3rd application on behalf of appellant no.6- Siyaram. FiRs.application was considered and rejected on 26/10/2006, second application was dismissed as none had appeared on 11/03/2011 on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is alleged that Siyaram was present on the spot armed with lathi, but no overt act was attributed to the appellant Siyaram for inflicting any injury on the person of deceased Hasai or on the person of Kamlesh. It is submitted that the case was improved during the evidence and it was alleged that the appellant had also inflicted injury by lathi to the deceased. That 4 injuries were found ...
R.C.Burra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.1591/1999) Mahendra Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1592/1999) Manohar Singh Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1593/1999) Prem Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1594/1999) R.C. Burra Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1595/1999) Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1463/1998) Dharmendra Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.1686/1998) Prem Singh Bisht 2 W.P. No.1591/1999 and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri , A.K. Pathak, Advocate and Shri K.C. Ghildayal Counsel for Respondents Shri, Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General O R D E R (20/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Whether a Deputy Superintendent of Police, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Police...
M.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Khemchand Chelani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.18615/2006 M.P.State Electricity Board and otheRs.-Versus- Khemchand Chellani PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents. ORDER ( 20.11.2012) 1: This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17.10.2006, passed by the Industrial Court, by which the claim of the respondent has been allowed for payment of wages with effect from 21.10.1992 to 5.10.1994, on the grounds that the respondent was compulsory retired from service, which order was called in question by the respondent in the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. An interim order was passed by the Labour Court directing continuance of services of the respondent, the said order was called in question in a Misc. Appeal before the Industrial Court and though earlier the order was set aside by allowing the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »