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.
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 The benefit was extended to him, but later on the same is withdrawn saying that such a circular is not applicable, therefore, he is required to approach this Court.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...
Bhavarlal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.20002/2012 (Bhavarlal Patel versus State of M.P.& ors.) 30.11.2012 Heard Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat, Raisen, District Raisen is not complying the circular of the State Government dated 07.07.2007, while processing the files. It is stated that the petitioner has also approached the State Government but in vain, hence this petition. Relying upon the decision of this court passed in W.P.No.7098/2012 decided on 07.05.2012, it is submitted that the respondent No.1/State and the Collector, Raisen be directed to issue an appropriate direction to the respondent No.2. It is however observed that the competent authority in respect of Zila Panchayat, Raisen is the Commissioner of the Revenue Division but the petitioner has not approached the said authority and has directly approached this court. In the circumstan...
Rakesh Yadav Vs. Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19990 / 2012 (Rakesh Yadav ..versus MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Board & 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...
Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19488/2012 Vijay Bahadur Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that inspite of orders passed by the Collector dated 31.5.2005 in Case No.21/B-121/04-05, the Sub Registrar, Tikamgarh is continuing to register sale deeds in respect of land in dispute which have been executed behind the back of the petitioner inspite of the pendency of the partition proceedings. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has not brought any document on record to indicate that the petitioner has approached the Collector after 2005 bringing to his notice the aforesaid violation of his orders by the Sub Registrar, Tikamgarh. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the Collector...
Mahesh Prasad Soni Vs. Rajkumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19238/12 30.11.2012 Shri V.C.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/non-applicant no.1 the registered owner of the offending vehicle has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by VIIIth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rewa, in Claim Case No.54/2010, whereby his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead M/s Ashoka Agency as respondents in the matter has been dismissed. Such application was filed contending that the alleged offending vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from such Ashoka Agency and he has become the owner of it but its insurance policy inspite of such transaction, was not transferred in the name of present petitioner. Petitioners counsel submits that in the available scenario when the insurance Policy was not transferred in the name of petitioner along with vehicle, therefore, the Ashoka...
Bhagat S. Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19964 / 2012 (Bhagat S. Tekam & another ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.30-11-2012 Heard Shri M.S.Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18-10-2012 passed by the Collector, Balaghat, in 12-A-89/2011-12 and the consequent show cause notice dated 9-11-2012 issued by the S.D.O., Baihar proposing to reopen and review the previous order passed by the S.D.O.on 22-8-2012. By placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697.it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Collector, being without jurisdiction and patently illegal the same be quashed in the present writ petition. Apparently against the impugned order passed by the Collector, Balaghat alternative, efficacious, statutory remedies are available to the petitioner under the provisions of law and in ...
Akash Singh Chouhan Vs. Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.18189/2012 Akash Singh Chouhan versus Board of Secondary Education & ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri D.S.Chouhan learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming revaluation of the answer sheets of the subject of Social Science conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in the class 10th Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education for the year 2011-12 and has been awarded more than 90 marks in each subject except for the subject of Social Science wherein he has been awarded 83 marks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had performed well in the said examination and was expecting more than 90 marks. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the respondent authorities be directed to revaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner and award him marks as stated above. I have hear...
Smt. Vimla Agarwal Vs. Surya Kiran Choubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.15162 o30. 11.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brahmadatt Singh, counsel for the respondent. The petitioner/defendant/tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 23.8.12 Annex.P/1 passed by the III ADJ.Sagar in RCS No.69-A/2011 whereby her application filed not to disbuRs.the deposited sum of the rent of the disputed premises to the respondent/plaintiff till disposal of the suit, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the record, I have not found any perversity, illegality or any infirmity in the order till the extent of dismissal of the petitioner's application but I am of the considered view that while deciding the application the court has to protect the interest of the petitioner by giving some appropriate direction for disbursement of the deposited sum to the respondent/plaintiff. So, subject to judgment of the suit, on arising the occasion, the petitioner may r...
Mukesh Kumar JaIn Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
R.P.No.527/2012 (M.K.Jain versus M.P.S.E.B.& ors.) 30.11.2012 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.N.Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2. Shri Abhijeet Bhomik, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the order passed by this Court in R.P.No.402/2011 dated 05.09.2011, the authorities, i.e., the Civil Court or the Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum are not considering the objections of the applicant towards continuance of the temporary connection by stating that there is a direction by this Court to continue the same for all times to come and in such circumstances, the aforesaid observation be clarified. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground of delay and laches as well as stating that the second review application is not maintainable....
Hukum Singh Ghosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.19219/2012 Hukum Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.11.2012 Heard Shri Shashank Upadyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the registration of the fiRs.information report against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation before the police authorities bringing to their notice certain facts but the same are not being taken into consideration by the authorities. Looking to the fact that a fiRs.information report has been registered against the petitioner and the matter is under investigation, I find no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner wants to bring certain facts to the notice of the authorities, he may do so alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition and it goes without saying that the authority concerned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »