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.
Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Writ Petition No.20321/12. 14.12.2012 Shri Arun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition without challenging the any order of any authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents not to make the construction of the road over KhaSr.No.186/1/gh, 186/1/k/2 and 186/1/kh/2 at Village Turki New Ram Nagar District Sagar. In the oral arguments, petitioners counsel apprised me that without adopting the procedure prescribed regarding Acquisition of land, the respondents are going to construct the aforesaid road on the land of the petitioners and, therefore, by admitting this petition, they be restrained from such activity. During the couRs.of arguments, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, the representation of the...
Dongar Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1....M.C.C.No.1323 of 2012 Dongar Singh Prakash Chandra and ORS.14.12.2012 Shri Sudhir Mishra, Counsel for the applicant. This application is filed seeking extension of time for the compliance of order dated 11.9.2012 in S.A.No.839 of 2009. It is submitted that due to non-arrangement of the funds, petitioner could not deposit the amount as was directed by this Court by order dated 11.9.2012. It is prayed that further 15 days time be allowed to the petitioner to comply with the order. By order dated 11.9.2012 S.A.No.839 of 2009 was finally disposed of by an order which reads thus :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Khandwa in Civil Appeal No.15- A/2009, by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2008 in civil suit no.9-A/2001, by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa, was dismissed. Both the Courts below found that the appellant was te...
Raghunath Prasad Sallam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
W.P.No.20671/2012 14.12.2012 Shri Shyam Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming benefit of Circular dated 5.3.2002, issued by the Directorate of Health Services and also submits that similar petitions filed by the othr similarly situated employees have been disposed of with appropriate directions to the respondents. Legal position as stated above is not disputed by Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation along with a copy of the order passed today in this petition and copy of the petition filed before this Court within fifteen days before the competent authority, the said authority shall consider the petitioner's represen...
Rakesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8326/12. 13.12.2012 Shri S.K.Nema, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard. On behalf of the applicant this 5th repeat application has been preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail as he is in custody since 23.3.2009 in connection of Crime No.152/09 registered at Police Station Rampur Baghelan, District Satna for the offence under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S.Act. 1985, as alleged he was found in possession of 3.36 quintal and 4.26 quintal the contraband substance Ganja. It is noted that his earlier applications were dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2009, 1.11.2011, 1.3.2011 and 3.4.2012. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the applicants counsel regarding present status of the trial as well as the new circumstances to reconsider the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail on which, he submits that subsequent to dismissal of last application more than 7 months has been passed and trial of t...
Ku. Meenal JaIn Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.10598/2010 (Ku. Meenal Jain versus The Board of Secondary Education) 13.12.2012 Heard Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for revaluation of her answer sheet of the subject of Sanskrit of the Class-10th examination undertaken by her in the year 2010 conducted by the respondent/Board. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been awarded only 75 marks whereas she was expecting 90 marks in the subject of Sanskrit and in the circumstances the respondent be directed to conduct revaluation of her answer sheet in the subject of Sanskrit. It is observed that the petitioner appeared in the examination of 10th Class in the year 2010 and is seeking revaluation of the answer sheet in the subject of Sanskrit in the year 2012. From a perusal of the petition and documents filed along with it, this court is unable to find any glaring irregularity or mistake ...
Dr. P.S.Lamba Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Dr.P.S. Lamba versus State 1 W.P.No.21521/2011 13.12.2012: Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Arpan J. Pawar, for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner a 92 years old senior citizen has filed this writ petition mainly challenging the order Annexure P/7 dated 2.5.1980 by which an earlier order passed on 1.6.1977 in the matter of his retirement has been modified and changed adversely effecting his right to pension and other post retiral benefits. Petition was filed on 15.12.2011. Notices were issued to the respondents on 20.12.2011 . Time was granted to the State Government to file reply on 11.7.2012. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 8.11.2012, learned counsel for the State again prayed for time. Taking note of the advance age of the petitioner and the fact that the matter was pending for about 11 months as a matter of last indulgence three weeks time was granted to the respondents to file reply and the...
Dr. P.G. Najpandey Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1 Writ Petition No.20920/2012 13.12.2012 Shri A.S.Raizada, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents by registered post with A/D, on payment of process fee within a week. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General waives notice on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 4. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to make all possible steps for alleviating the sufferings of the patients and ensure that they are being given proper medical attention. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for necessary compliance. (S.A.Bobde) (M.C.Garg) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Ashish @ Sanu (Patariya) Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.8414/2012 13.12.2012 Shri Zafar Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Mohit Namdeo, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the statement of Smt. Babita @ Jiya Khan has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in compliance of our order dated 12th December, 2012. He has shown us Photostat copy of the statement in which she has stated that she is living with respondent No.6 by her own freewill and she has also performed Nikah. She has stated her age as 21 years before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and it is also stated that aforesaid act was done by her on her own freewill. So far as the age of Smt. Babita @ Jiya Khan is concerned, there is no dispute. In view of the aforesaid fact that Smt. Babita @ Jiya Khan is not in wrongful confinement and she is living with respondent No.6 on her own freewill, we do not find it a...
Smt.Premlata Bhavsar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.12990 OF 200.(s) Smt. Premlata Bhavsar Petitioner versus State of M. P. and another Respondents Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menot Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe ...................................................................................................... Shri Pranay Verma for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak for respondent No.1. Shri Kishore Shrivastava with Shri Prem Francis for respondents No.2. .................................................................................................. ORDER (13/12/12) As per Rajendra Menon, J:- Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 5/09/08 passed by the competent authority retiring the petitioner under Rule 42(1)(b) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 r/w Fundamental Rule 56(2)(a) so also Rule 14 of the M. P. Uchchatar Nyayik (Seva Bharati Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner was appointed as a...
Ms. Subhanjali Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.18533 13. 12-2012 Heard Shri H.K.Upadyyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a meritorious student and has been awarded extremely less marks in the subject of English (General) in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2012 of Class XIIth. It is also submitted that the petitioner has examined the answer sheet of the aforesaid subject after obtaining the same under the Right to Information Act and states that there are serious discrepancies and deliberately less marks have been awarded to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay Rs.5,000/- in case no change is found in the answer sheet plus cost of revaluation and transportation. In view of the undertaking and statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within seven days and also direct the respondent/Board to produce the answ...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »