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.
D.G.Shahane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.1393/2008 (S) D.G. Shahane Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 & 5. None for respondent No.3 though served and represented. Shri H.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (29.11.2012) The controversy involved in this case boils around whether the petitioner could be absorbed on his own in the services of respondent No.3 without the option of the petitioner and whether the petitioner would be entitled to continue to be Government employee even though illegal order of absorption was issued in respect of petitioner by respondent No.3 and he was not relieved to join in ...
Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3587/2011 29.11.2012. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, learned GA for respondent /State. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the main controveRs.is about payment of amount of transportation. As per submission, it was paid on 22.04.06 to the transporter through co-accused Suryabhan Singh for which a written receipt is sought to be filed. Learned GA appearing for the State wants to verify the payment to the transporter. So, learned counsel for petitioner has handed over copy of receipt to learned Govt. Advocate. Learned GA is directed to verify the same. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to file the same. Let the receipt/payment be verified within four weeks. List the matter in the last week of January, 2013. I.R.to continue till next date of hearing. C.c.as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk. 2...
Chintaman Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Chintaman Sahu versus State & ORS.W.P.No.19981/2012 29/11/2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned P.L.for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade-III in the office of Collector, Jabalpur. On 9.10.2012, he was suspended and it was alleged against the petitioner that he has not taken steps for removal of certain encroachment in accordance with directions issued in W.P.No.2214/2005. On such consideration, the petitioner was suspended. However, when the suspension has been revoked, petitioner is treated to be in duty and the suspension period has been regularized but as the petitioner is transferred from the place from where he was suspended and posted to the Tehsil office Kundam, petitioner has filed this writ petition and the only ground canvassed at the time of hearing is that once the suspension is revoked, the employee is entitled to be reinstated in the place, from where he was suspended. In support of the ...
Dr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Dr. Sanjeev Sharma versus State of MP and otheRs.29.11.2012. Shri Dileep Pandey for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 to 5. Considering the fact that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court petitioner has been permitted to join in Government College, Gudh and the petitioner is working as is evident from the return filed by the respondents, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to work in pursuance to the order passed Annexure R/1, and the joining of the petitioner as contained in Annexure R/2. In view of the above, the petition is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Surendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khamhariya Khurd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
1 W.P.No.19259 o29. 11.2012 Shri A.K.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sheetal Dubey, GA for respondent No.3 on advance copy. 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 9.10.12 Annex.P/5 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Nagod in C OS No.7-A/11 whereby his application filed under order 13 rule 10 of the CPC for calling the record of some authority has been dismissed. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record including the plaint and the impugned order said that at the initial stage the averments with respect of such document has been pleaded in the plaint but the copy of such document was not made available to the petitioner hence the same was not filed and in the lack of copy of such document on the record, the impugned application under order 13 rule 10 of the CPC was filed to call the same. In addition he said that without considering the...
Virendra Singh and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2017/1997 Virendra Singh, son of late Chhiddi Singh, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Lavraha, Post Office Balgora, P.S. Thandla, Distt. Chhatarpur Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO, P.S. Chandla, Distt. Chhatarpur Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (29.11.2012) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 11.9.1997 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.79/97, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under Convicted under Sentenced to Sections 498A of the IPC undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/...
Devendra Singh Rathour Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Cr.R.No.2217.2012 29.11.2012 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, Advocate ,for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, P.L.for the State. Heard Finally with the consent of both the parties. This petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2012 and 8.11.2012 of Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.139/2011. On 8.11.2012 an application u/s 233(3) was moved on behalf of petitioner to call ten witnesses which was refused vide the alleged order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.139/11. As case was already closed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per instructions and guidance from the Senior Advocate it was necessary to call ten defence witnesses in the case to prove some documents. He further submits that though he moved an application for examining ten defence witnesses but at least three witnesses i.e.Heeralal Sen, Jawaharlal Sarpanch and Dy.S.P.Headquarter Katni alongwith statements recorded by him pursuant to the directions of S.P.Katni are very impo...
Mohd.iliyas Khan Alias Bhole Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
IGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.11263 / 2009 Mohd. Iliyas Khan alias Bhole Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others _________________________________________________ Shri Siddharth Datt and Shri Nishant Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A. for the State/respondents. _________________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (29-11-2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa hereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Rewa dated 14-7-2009 cancelling the petitioner's arms licence has been affirmed.2. The facts that have been brought on record by the petitioner briefly stated, are that the petitioner, who lives in village Gaddi, within the jurisdiction of P.S.Govindgarh, District Rewa, is an agriculturist and has also obtained a mining lease. It is...
indrabhan Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Writ Petition No.11155/12. 29.11.2012 Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the State-respondents no.1 to 3. None for the respondents no.4 to 6 although served and represented through duly engaged counsel. In compliance of earlier order dated 2.11.2012, this case is listed today for final disposal. Heard. The petitioner herein filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.5.2012 passed by Tahsildar Nazul sub-Division Omti Jabalpur, in revenue case No.36/A-6/11-12 whereby, some interim stay at the instance of some application of the respondents no.5 & 6, the petitioner was directed not to dismantle the existing structure of block no.88 plot No.80/1 area 840 Sq. feet. Having heard the counsel present, I have carefully gone through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record. From...
Dr. Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Dr. Vinot Kumar Mishra versus State of MP and five otheRs.29.11.2012. Shri Dileep Pandey for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for respondents 1 to 4. None appears for respondent Nos.5 and 6, even though notices by registered post acknowledgement due have been sent more than 60 days back. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to appointment of Athithi Vidwan (Guest LectureRs.in the subject of Zoology in various colleges, in the District of Rewa. In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the State Government for filling up the post of Guest Lecturers in various colleges, petitioner applied for appointment in the subject of Zoology. In the advertisement issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/1, Clause 2.6 contemplates a provision which enabled a candidate to give preference in the matter of appointment by indicating 10 Institutes, where the candidate can apply for the post in question. In the online advertisement issued as is evident from Annexure P/...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »