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.
Balmukund Vs. Smt. Sunita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.11686/12 30.11.2012. Shri Manot Rajak, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Heard on admission as well as on IA No.20216/12, an application for grant of stay. Issue notice to respondent to show cause against admission as well as on IA 20216/12 by both modes, i.e., by ordinary as well as RAD post. Steps within three clear working days. Notice is made returnable within four weeks. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is desirable to peruse the record of Criminal Complaint Case No.1815/09 pending before JMFC, Tikamgarh. So, Office is directed to call for the aforesaid record. The record must reach this Court within a period of four weeks. List immediately after four weeks. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Sanjeev Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Misc. Criminal Case No.7426/2011) Sanjeev Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri Shamim Ahmed Khan, Advocate Counsel for respondent Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate O R D E R (29/11/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Quashment of First Information Report leading to registration of Crime No. 20/2009 at Economic Offence Wing Bureau, Bhopal dated 24.7.2009 is being sought vide this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The F.I.R in turn relates to registration of offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 B, Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and four other persons, viz., Mohd. Abid Khan, the then President Betwa Grin Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Bhopal, R....
Urmila Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Writ Petition No.5308/12. 29.11.2012 Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents no.1 to 3./State. Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 & 5. This petition is listed today for final disposal. Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of allotment of new Shops stated and described in the petition. Pursuant to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents No.4 & 5 to allot the new Shops to the petitioneRs.is also made. It is noted that till today return has not been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. After hearing the parties keeping in view their arguments, on perusing the record, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, the representations of the...
Kulbinder Kaur Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
W.P.NO.12405/05(S) 29-11-2012. Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri S.Ganguli, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Challenging the order dated 03-10-2005, passed by the Collector, Balaghat, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as contract teacher has been cancelled, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the impugned action has been taken by the Collector, Balaghat, respondent no.1 by exercising powers under Section 323 of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961. The question as to whether the Collector can exercise this power for cancelling the appointment has already been considered by this court in various cases as well as in W.P.No.11596/2005 (Chandra Hass Sharma and others versus Municipal Council and otheRs.vide order dated 23-08-2006 and similar action and orders passed by the Collector has been quashed and it has been held that ...
Ganesh Pagare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.17458 o29. 11.2012 Shri C.L.Sethi, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for the respondents. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 25.9.12 Annex.P/1 passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate Burhanpur whereby under section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,1990 passing the order for externment of the petitioner for one year from the boundaries of district Burhanpur and the adjoining districts. In the couRs.of the argument, in response of some query of the court based on section 9 of the aforesaid Act in which the impugned order is made appealable, petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appeal before the Commissioner, Indore and subject to outcome of such appeal, on arising the occasion, to approach this court again. Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion on merits of the petition, this pe...
Hansraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P No.2091/2008 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2091/2008 PETITIONERS : HANSRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioners : Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate. For the respondent/ : Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer. State Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (29/11/2012) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the High Power State Level Committee for screening of caste certificates wherein it has directed to initiate proceedings against the petitioners for cancellation of their caste certificates.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioners are the children of Late Shri Ram Singh, who undisputedly was a resident of Uttar Pradesh. It is also undisputed that he belonged to the Chamar Caste which was notified as a Scheduled Caste in...
Essar Power M.P.Ltd. Vs. Collector Singrauli / Distt.Rehabilitation Of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Writ Petition No.15739/10. 29.11.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Manot Rajak, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. In compliance of earlier order, this case is listed today for final disposal. In the couRs.of such arguments, petitioners counsel raised the question that as per available scenario and the evidence of the matter, the respondent no.4 being not resident of concerning village, his house was not in existence on the land which was acquisitioned for the project of the petitioner and in such premises, the respondent No.4 could not be treated to be displaced person as defined in the Policy Annexure-P-3. In support of his contention he also said that, as per reply of the petitioner, filed in the impugned proceedings before the Collector, the respondent no.4 was the resident of Baidhan and not the concerning village and in such premises, the respondent no.4 neither the resident of su...
Tarkeshwar Prasad Vs. Smt.Subhadra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.13662/12. 29.11.2012 . Shri S.M.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2012 (Ann. P.3) passed by the Board of Revenue, State of Madhya Pradesh,Gwalior in Revenue Revision No.513/2010 whereby the order dated 7.3.2012 granting ad-interim stay directing to maintain the status-quo has been vacated by the Revenue Board stating that such order was passed till the next date of hearing and such date has been passed. It is apparent on record that except the revision memo and the impugned order no other documents have been placed on record to enable this Court to consider the matter on mertis, so also in the available scenario this petition could not be adjudicated on merits, as such merits of the matter is to be considered by the Board of Revenue in pending revision. Keeping in view the pendency of such revision, in the available scenario, this petition is dispos...
Santosh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Writ Petition No.18474/12. 29.11.2012 Shri Ashish Kurmi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents no.1& 2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner who is the President of some co-operative Society, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for qaushment of the order dated 14.9.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the SDO (Revenue) District Sagar in revenue case No.209/B/121/11-12, whereby out of three Fair Price Shops allotted to the petitioner under some order of 1991 promulgated under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, one Shop was temporarily allotted to the respondent no.3 namely Primary Laghuvan Upaj Sahakari Samiti Viniyaka Tahsil Banda. In the available scenario on asking the petitioners counsel whether any representation at the instance of petitioner-Society is pending before any of the authority for reconsideration of the order Annexure-P-1 or under the Madhya Pradesh Pub...
Narendra Kumar Patidar Vs. Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.19206 o29. 11.2012 Shri Siddarth Gulati, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 3.10.12 Annex.P/5 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Sihore in Co.No.56-A/12 whereby his application filed under order 11 rule 12 of the CPC (the same appears to have been filed under Order 11 rule 14 of the CPC) has been dismissed. In addition to aforesaid the prayer for allowing the aforesaid application is also made in this petition. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the papers placed on the record, I have found that such application has been filed by the petitioner at the initial stage of the case and till passing the impugned order the interlocutory injunction application of the plaintiff filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has also not been decided even the issues have also not been framed. So, at this stage, he petitioner very well may demon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »