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.
Manisha Lalwani Vs. D.V.Paul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1....M.C.C.No.1282 o13. 12.2012 Shri Mohd. Ali, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Arun Kumar Choubey, Counsel for the respondents. This application is filed for modification of order dated 16.9.2011 in which the prayer of the applicant is for transfer of the case to some other Court, as the court below is unable to decide the case as directed by this Court. From the perusal of the order dated 16.9.2011, we find that the time period for deciding the case was extended on the prayer of the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Katni for deciding the Civil Suit No.53/09, pending between the parties. It is also brought to our notice that applicant has already moved an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C.for the transfer of the aforesaid case to some other Court. In view of the aforesaid factual position, no further action is required in the matter. The application is dismissed. However, applicant shall be at liberty to press her prayer in M.C.C.1159 of 2011, which will be considered in accordan...
Vishwa Dev Sharma Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.13476/2012 (V.D.Sharma versus State of M.P.& ors.) 13.12.2012 Heard Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the State level High Power Committee constituted for making enquiries into false cases of issuance of false caste certificates. He prays that the said authority/committee be directed to decide the application at an early date. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State level High Power Committee for mitigation of his grievances. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner files such an application before the High Power Committee within 15 days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned committee shall take up the proceedings, hear all concerned and thereafter s...
Sandeep Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.20845/2012 (Sandeep Chouhan Vs.State of M.P.& ors.) 13.12.2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, wherein he has quashed the order dated 05.07.2012 and 11.04.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Chhindwara and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Junnardeo, Disitrict Chhindwara respectively, by which the respondent No.6 had been removed from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Datlawadi, Janpad Panchayat Junnardeo. Admittedly the impugned order is revisionable before the State under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21567/2011 decided on 06.02.2012. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner...
Smt. Gyan Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.20790/2012 (Smt Gyan Gupta versus State of M.P.& ors.) 13.12.2012 Heard Shri D. Chandra Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's land, control of which has been taken over by the respondent authorities pursuant to attempts on the part of the petitioner to undertake illegal colonization on the land in question and orders in respect of which have been affirmed by this court also. The petitioner not submits that she undertakes to do only agricultural activities on the land in question as it has been declared to be green land and on that count, she prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to return the possession of the land to the petitioner. It is however, observed that the petitioner has directly approached this court without approaching the concerned authorities for mitigation of her grievances. In t...
Niraj Kumar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.7110/10 Niraj Kumar and others .. .. Petitioners Vs./- High Court of M.P. .. .. Respondent ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, with Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.S. Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MEnot AND HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (13.12.2012) Per Alok Aradhe, J.- In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia have challenged Sub-Clause (iv), (v) and (vi) of Clause 8 of the advertisement dated 4.3.2010 in so far as it provides for fixation of minimum marks in the written examination and interview for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition briefly stated are that the High Court issued an advertisement dated 4.2.2010 inviting ap...
N.B.Vadia Vs. Bharat Singh Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
M.Cr.C.No.12818/10 13.12.2012. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent. Since both the sides have reported the matter to the police and police has taken cognizance and filed challan in both the cases so State is a necessary party. Consequently, learned counsel for petitioners is directed to array State of M.P.as respondent no.2 in the petition. Necessary corrections be made in the cause title within three days. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned PL appears on behalf of the State and takes notice on behalf of the State. He is directed to call for the case diary. Let a copy of petition with annexures be supplied to Shri Kushwaha by the petitioners counsel. List the matter under the same head on th 17 January, 2013. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till next date of hearing. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Sheikh Rashid @ Guddu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.20732/2012 (Sheikh Rashid alias Guddu versus State of MP and otheRs.13.12.2012 Heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the respondents appointing an administrator for Municipal Council, Kolar as the said council is proposed to be merged in Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. During the couRs.of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.19995/12 (PIL) dated 05.12.2012 wherein the notification proposing to merge the Municipal Council, Kolar in Municipal Corporation, Bhopal was challenged and which has been disposed of directing the authorities to take up further proceedings and decide the same pursuant to the preliminary notification and take a decision in the matter regarding merger of the Municipal council, Kolar in Municipal Corporation, ...
Middle India Radhasoami Medical Relief Society Vs. Harru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.3400/2012 13.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 36. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for respondent No.37. Heard on IA No.15293 and IA No.15690/12 petitioner's application for taking annexed documents on record and IA No.15717/12 an application on behalf of private respondents for taking annexed documents on record. Counsel for both the parties did not have any objection in allowing such applications for taking annexed documents on record. Having perused such documents, the same appear to be relevant with the matter, hence by allowing the aforesaid IAs the respective annexed documents of the petitioner as well as of the respondents are taken on record. Counsel of the private respondents submits that he has filed the return in the matter alongwith IA No.11585/12 on dated 10.12.2012. The same is also taken on record. The petitioner's counsel does n...
Dr. Anand Govind Vinchurkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.17062/2011 Dr. Anand Govind Vinchurkar versus State of MP and others 13.12.2012. Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sanjay Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Ajay S. Raizada for respondent No.4. Challenging the order-dated 9.9.2011 Annexure P/5 passed by the Commissioner, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of MP, giving charge of Civil Surgeon of District Hospital, Panna to respondent No.4 Dr. Rajesh Shrivastava; and, challenging the order-dated 3.5.2010, by which petitioner has been transferred from District Panna to Bitarwar, in District Gwalior, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as a Specialist Medical Officer (Anaesthetist) in District Hospital Panna. Vide order-dated 3.5.2010 Annexure P/1, he was transferred from Panna to Community Health Centre Bitarwar, District Gwalior. However, as there was only one Specialist (Anaesthetist) in District Hos...
Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
Criminal Revision No.2328/12 13.12.2012. Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner. State/respondent by Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned PL. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by accused/petitioner Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava as against Order dated 5.11.12 (Annexure-E) passed in ST No.155/09 by which an application (IA No.4) filed by the petitioner has been rejected by Addl.Sessions Judge, Umaria. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it has come that petitioner filed a written complaint on 24.06.07 before S.K.Mishra, the then SHO,on whose instructions Mahendra Pandey, Head Constable at Thana AJK, Umaria received the complaint and has made endorsement of receiving the complaint of which a carbon copy is there. Learned Court below has refused to call both witnesses S.K.Mishra, the 2 then SHO and Mahendra Pandey Head Constable, Thana AJK, Umaria. Counsel submits that S.K.Mishra is not post...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »