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.
Sandeep Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.4086/2012 08.11.2012 Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondent-State. Heard. This sixth repeat petition preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is listed today for admission. At the outset applicant's counsel submits that the applicant will surrender himself before the Investigating Officer of the impugned criminal case on or before 30.11.2012 and in such premises, he further prayed that concerning Sessions Court be directed that after surrendering the applicant, as submitted by him, if any regular bail application is filed on his behalf, then the same be considered in accordance with law on some early date. Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. However, considering the oral prayer of the applicant's counsel, it is observed that on surrendering the applicant before 30.11.2012, if any bail application under Se...
Surat Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
surat singh versus State 1 W.P.No.18508/2012 8/11/2012 Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the employer to reinstate in service. Record indicates that petitioner was removed from service due to his involvement in a criminal case but vide order dated 23.8.2012 exercising the powers under Section 55(2).the Assistant Registrar has quashed the order of removal and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner. Inter alia contending that the directions issued by the Assistant Registrar in his order dated 23.8.2012 has not been complied with, this writ petition has been filed. If the order passed by the Appellate Authority has not been complied with under the Cooperative Societies Act itself adequate power is given to the Statutory authority therein for getting the order executed. Bypassing the aforesaid remedy, invoking jurisdiction of this Court is not necessar...
Bhojpal Matsya Udyog Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Bhopal Vs. the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.19034/2012 (Bhojpal Matsya Udyog versus State of MP and otheRs.08.11.2012 Heard Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. Though several issues have been raised in the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent/Municipal Corporation be directed to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner against the recovery of lease rent for Big Lake in Bhopal for the period during which the petitioners were neither granted lease not were permitted to undertake fishery operations. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a representation before the Corporation on 20.07.2012 but no decision thereon has been taken till date. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners without entering into the merits of the case or commenting upon the entitlement of the petitioneRs.the petition filed by the petitioners is d...
Rishikumar Dubey Vs. Manniya Ayukt Mahoday M.P. Rajya Suchna Ayog, Nir ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.P.No.18127/2012 Rishikumar Dubey versus State Information Commission & ORS.08.11.2012 Heard Shri Shyam Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2009 passed by the M.P.Information Commissioner established under the Right to Information Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had sought certain documents from respondent no.4 under the Right to Information Act but the respondent no.4 had ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.7,580/- for making available the information sought by him. The petitioner, being aggrieved, had filed an appeal before respondent no.3 against the order passed by respondent no.4 which was partly allowed with a direction to the respondent no.4 to provide information upto 50 pages free of cost. The petitioner, being aggrieved had thereafter filed a second appeal before the respondent no.1 which was dismis...
M/S M.H. Textiles Burhanpur Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.P.No.18234 o08. 11.2012 Shri Riyaz Mohd. counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the notice dated 26.9.12 issued by the respondent No.2 under section 13(2) of the Securitization Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (in short SRFAESI) for taking over the possession of the mortgage property of the loan transaction between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner. In the couRs.of the arguments on referring the provision of section 13 of the aforesaid Act so also the decided cases of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of M/s Sravan Dall Mill P. Ltd versus Central Bank of India and another -AIR 201.Andhra Pradesh 35 and in the matter of Chembeti Brahimaiah Chowdary versus State Bank of Hyderabad and another-AIR 201.Andhra Pradesh 203 , on going through the same, and taking into consideration the submissi...
Smt. Sakuntala Pote Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1....W.A.No.1151 of 2012 Smt. Sakuntala Pote State of M.P.and ORS.08.11.2012 Shri M.P.Shukla, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 18.9.2012 in W.P.No.15559 of 2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against her transfer order dated 20.8.2012 was dismissed. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to file a representation against the transfer order before respondent No.2, who may be directed to decide the representation considering all the grievances of the appellant. Prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.A.G.Hence, this appeal is disposed of finally with the following directions :- 1. Appellant may file a fresh representation against the transfer order before respondent No.2 agitating her grievances supported by necessary documents, if any.2. If any representation is made by the appe...
Smt. Neeti Chaurasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
1 W.P.No.17538/12 8/11/12 Smt. Sarita Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents/State. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming the relief of appointment as Lab Assistant under the circulars of the State Govt. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Teacher on 22nd July, 1991 in the respondent No.3 school and he continued as such till 21.9.99 when his services were terminated. The State Govt. had issued the circular dated 20th July, 1998 with a view to give an opportunity to the part-time Teachers for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant, providing that relaxation in M.P.not Gazette Class III Education Services (Non-Collegiate) Recruitment and Provisions Rules, 1973 will be made and selection will be done by the Central Selection Board on the basis of eligibility/merit and the part-time Teachers found suitable in that selection will be appointed in the concerned educational institution. The Circular further pr...
Durga Prasad Beohar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
Durga Prasad Beohar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.11684 8. 11.2012: Shri R.B.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claims grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioners claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner withou...
Anil Choubey Vs. Sub Divisional Officer , Revenue Rehli
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.18954/2012 Anil Choubey versus SDO, Rehli & others 08.11.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rehli, District Sagar to the effect that in case the petitioner appears before him within two days and files a reply as well as an application seeking withdrawal of the order directing issuance of arrest warrant, the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on withdrawal of arrest warrant. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case or commenting upon the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. It is made clear that in case the petitioner approaches the Sub-Divisional Officer, ...
Pooja Swasahayata Group Primary School Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2012
W.P.No.18787/2012 Pooja Swa Sahayata Samooh versus State of M.P.& ORS.08.11.2012 Heard Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.10.2012 by which the work of supply of mid-day meals awarded to the petitioner for Middle School Kandela has been withdrawn and the same has been given to the Gram Panchayat Kandela. Admittedly the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order before the Collector on 30.10.2012 is pending and the petitioner without awaiting for a decision thereon has immediately filed the present petition after two days. In such circumstances, as the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings at the same time and as the Collector is already ceased with the matter, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending matter before the Collector...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »