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.
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...
Smt. Parwati Bai Katiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.19258/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioner therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal ...
Rajkumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19106/2012 30.11.2012 None for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Perused the matter. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitioners succee...
Premlal Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.20047 / 2012 (Premlal Kewat ..Vs.State of MP & otheRs.30-11-2012 Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29-6-2012, passed by the Collector, Satna whereby the lease of Hanuman lake has been granted to the respondent No.6 without taking note of the fact that the petitioner had been granted lease of the said lake in the year 2006 for ten yeaRs.From a perusal of the petition it is apparent and undisputed that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to take up proceedings against the impugned order before the Commissioner in accordance with law. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up the proceedings before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, for redressal of his grievance. In the peculiar facts and circumstan...
Sukund Lilhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.20075 / 2012 (Sukund Lilhare..versus State of MP & otheRs.30-11-2012 Shri Harshit Patel, 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 India. In v...
Kamalchand Chawda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19893 / 2012 (Kamalchand Chawda.Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.30-11-2012 Heard Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/authorities have not informed the petitioner as to the decision taken in the complaint filed by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent No.3 and also in view of the fact that no decision in the matter has been taken by the respondent No.3. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing the present petition without approaching the respondent No.3 with his grievance for a decision in the matter which is pending decision. In the circumstances, without entering into 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 does so alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy o...
Ashok Kumar Sable Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.19184/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to reconsider the location of land for construction of towers and poles for Sarni Power House and its new Unit so as exclude the land of the petitioner in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1985. In alternate to it prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to ascertain and grant full compensation for the losses suffered by the petitioner due to construction of Sarni Power House and erection of towers and poles through the land of the petitioner and pay him the same. Apart this, additional prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities not to enter the l...
Rishi Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
W.P.No.19741/2012 (Rishi Sen versus State of M.P.& ors.) 30.11.2012 Heard Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent No.3. From a perusal of Annexure P-10, it is apparent that it is an information sent by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Damoh to the Secretary, Public Grievances Department, Bhopal on a representation being filed by the petitioner before the said authority for further action and ordeRs.The aforesaid document indicates that the matter is not pending decision before the Secretary, Public Grievances Department, Bhopal. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid document (annexure P-10) which is an information that has been sent to the Secretary, Public Grievances Department, Bhopal, moreso, as the issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question...
inder Singh Vs. Smt. Uma Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Writ Petition No.16132/12. 30.11.2012 Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharada Dubey, learned P.L.for the respondent no.4-State on advance copy. Heard. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-P-5).passed by Civil Judge Class-II Pipariya, District Hoshangabad, in Civil Original Suit No.7-A/2011 whereby, their application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing some additional issues in the matter has been dismissed. Having heard the petitioners counsel at length on admission, keeping in view his arguments on perusing the impugned order along with the papers placed on record, I have found that whatever issues has been proposed by the petitioners in their application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC (Annexure-P-3).the same are covered with the earlier framed issue no.3 which was framed on 2.12.2012 (Annexure-P-2).In such premises, it is obser...
Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Umesh Prasad Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
1 W.P.No.7602 o30. 11.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.S.Gaharwar, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for the respondent No.4/state. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of some part of the order dated 23.2.12 Annex.P/9 passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class-II, Panna in Co.No.8-A/11 whereby his application filed under section 63 read with section 65 of the Evidence Act to prove the photocopy of some document by way of secondary evidence, has been dismissed. Petitioners counsel submits that after allowing his application filed under Order 8 rule 1-A of the CPC and taking the concerned document on record there was no option with the court but to allow the impugned application of the petitioner to prove such document by secondary evidence and, in such premises, he prayed to set aside such order and allowing his application by allowing this petition. The aforesaid prayer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »