Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Jai Singh (D) Lrs. Sarvesh Singh Tomar Vs. Mandir Shri Ram Janki
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P No.1425 o14. 12.2012 Shri Awinash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The case is listed for admission and consideration of various other IAs partly. Initially instead to argue the case on admission, petitioneRs.counsel prayed to hear this petition on IA No.1238/12, an application to substitute the legal representatives of the petitioner No.1 (b) on record as he has passed away during the pendency of the petition, on which respondents' counsel submits that in view of some findings of the Board of Revenue in the impugned order Annexure P-1, such question is also to be examined in the matter while considering the question of admission and sustainability of such order of Board of Revenue and such application could not be considered on merits unless the petition is heard on admission. In view of such submissions of the parties after perusing the aforesaid application as well as the impugned order, I deem fit to...
Director (Personnel and Administration) Vs. Smt. Veena Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
MCC No.960 of 2012. 14.12.2012. Shri Vivek Baderia for the petitioner. Office has listed this case for correction of the typographical error crept in our order dt.29.10.2012 in which the number of W.A.which was directed to be restored has been wrongly typed as 869/10 while the correct number is 868/10. From the perusal of the record, we find that in the relief clause of the restoration application and on the certified copy of the order dt.5.9.2011 in W.A.No.868/10 the same number is appearing. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the office shall restore W.A.No.868/10 to its number in compliance of our order dt.29.10.2012. With the aforesaid direction, this M.C.C.Is finally disposed of. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Vinod Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 M.Cr.C.No.12534/12 14.12.2012. Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma, learned Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned PL for State/ respondent no.1. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to respondent no.2 to show cause against admission by both modes, i.e.by ordinary as well as RAD post. Notice is made returnable within four weeks. PF be paid by both modes within seven clear working days. Also heard on the question of grant of stay. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 20.6.12 and notice was issued to the respondent no.2 on 25.6.12. Counsel submits that thereafter as a counter blast FIR was lodged on 8.8.12 against the petitioners by the complainant and offence under Section 498-A/34 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered vide Crime No.56/12. Counsel submits that as a matter of fact there w...
M/S Nishith Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
M.C.C.No.1117 14. 12-2012 Heard Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for restoration of W.P.No.7483/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to an inadvertent mistake the order of this Court dated 9-7-20 12 to clear the default could not be complied with as he had instructed his clerk to make compliance of the order but he could not clear the default within the stipulated period which resulted in dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. W.P.No.7463/2012 be restored to its original number subject to compliance of this Court's order dated 9-7-2012 by clearing the default as pointed out by the office , within seven days. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.7463/2012. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge ...
Sangram Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.14911 of 2012 Sangram Singh Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioner : Shri Rohit Arya Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhitaditya, Advocate. For Respondent/ : Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Adv. State ORDER ( 14.12.2012) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. Initially the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the transfer of the Revenue case No.8-A/67/2011-12/1032 from the Court of respondent no.3 in which the show cause notice dated 27.7.2012 with respect of storing the sand was issued to the Court of Magistrate but after filing the petition on passing the final order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-P-6) in the aforesaid case by the respondent no.3 by way of amendment the prayer for quashment of such order whereby under Rule 18 (5) of M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Stor...
Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20674/2012 14.12.2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he has not been extended the benefit of Kramonnati though he has completed the requisite years of services. His claim has not been considered for grant of time scale pay also as is contemplated in the new policy made by the State Government. Thus, it is contended that since the petitioner has been denied such benefits, he has been discriminated by the respondents. The document indicates that the petitioner was earlier appointed on the post, but was dismissed. Later on, the petitioner was granted fresh appointment by order dated 30.3.1993. According to him, he has passed the departmental examination. Looking to the aforesaid, let the claim of the petitioner be considered for grant of Kramonnati or the time scale pay from the appropriate date counting the period of service with ...
Kailash Vs. Mohit Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20462/12. 14.12.2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition for quashment of the part of the order dated 21.11.2012, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II Chhindwara, in Civil Original Suit No.36-A/2012, whereby his application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been dismissed in part while allowing the same in part three additional issues have been framed by the trial Court. As per submission of the petitioners counsel in the light of specific pleadings of the petitioner/defendant in his written statement regarding adveRs.possession according to which, he has perfected the title over the property by adveRs.possession, no specific issue has been framed by the trial Court and no specific reasons for not framing such issue has been assigned in the order. In addition, it was argued that specific issue on the question of jurisdiction of the Court over the matter on ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Abdul Majeed Kureshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
R.P.No.529/2012 14.12.2012: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for applicant- State. This application has been filed for review/ recall of an order passed on 25.4.2011 in W.P.No.6200/2011. The writ petition was decided on the same date when it was listed for admission without notice to the respondents and the claim of the petitioner for grant of second krammonati was directed to be adjudicated and decided in accordance to law laid down in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& Others - W.P.No.6773/2006 decided on 26.5.2008. not from the application filed by the applicants it is seen that the petitioner was already superannuated on 30.4.1997 and the benefit of time bound promotion was already extended to the petitioner on 19.7.84 and his pay was fixed in the higher pay scale. It is stated that the benefit of time bound promotion introduced in a subsequent scheme that came into force on 19.4.99 will not apply to the petitioner who was superannuated prior...
Keshari Prasad Vs. Sub Divisional Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR W.P.No.20000/2012 Keshari Prasad and anot Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer and another. For the Petitioner s : Shri Ravish Agarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Smt Sheetal Dubey, Advocate. ORDER ( 14/ 12/2012 ) Per : Hon. U.C.Maheshwari J.The petitioners/ plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 17.11.12 (Annexure P/17) passed by the Ist Judge to the Court of I ADJ.Panna in Misc. Civil Appeal No.17/12 affirming the order dated 18.10.12 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-II, Panna in COS No.44-A/12 whereby their application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuing at interim injunction restraining the respondents to dispossess them from the disputed property described in the application as well as in the suit by themselves or from employees or the agency under execution of order dated 21.8.12 passed by the SDO re...
Smt. Kanchan JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.A.No.1305/2012 14.12.2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 08.10.2012 in W.P.No.10309/2010(S) by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Project Officer, Child Development Project, Khurai was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail remedy of filing an appeal against such an order. Respondent No.4 Smt. Laxmi Jain was working as Anganwadi Worker. Her services were terminated and thereafter the appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 31.12.1998. Respondent No.4 Smt. Laxmi Jain challenged her termination order and ultimately Commissioner, Sagar allowed her appeal and directed her reinstatement. After reinstatement of respondent No.4, appellant who was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, was removed vide order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2010 which was subject matter of W.P.No.103...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »