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.
Smt. Shashi JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20514/2012 (Smt. Sashi Jain versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, whereby he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Collector dated 06.11.2012 on the ground that the matter is still pending before the Collector and the petitioner would have full opportunity to raise all issues before him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner concerned has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Collector has infact decided the appeal and has dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 06.11.2012 and no matter or proceeding is pending before the Collector. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the Commissioner should have decided the matter...
Arvind Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
M.Cr.C.No.13246/12 12.12.2012. Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned PL for State. Heard on the question of admission. The petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA No.22836/12, an application for release of the vehicle in question on supurdnama during pendency of the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the petitioner was purchaser of teak wood and he by purchasing it from depot made furnitures in the form of door, window etc.It is alleged that the vehicle in question was involved in illegal transportation of the same. Prayer for Supurdnama made under Section 457 Cr.P.C.has been rejected by CJM, Panna in Misc.Criminal Case No.129/12 on 15.9.12. In Criminal Revision No.85/12 on 17.10.12, learned Addl.Judge to the Court of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Panna also rejected the prayer. So, this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for setting aside the aforesaid ordeRs.By IA 2283...
Nandram Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
M.C.C.No.1399/2012 12.12.2012 Heard Shri C.L.Sethi, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.16173/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel appearing for the petitioner could not understand the peremptory order, compliance was not made within the stipulated period which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for non- compliance of the peremptory order . The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.16173/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.16173/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Raj Bahadur Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.3687/2012 12.12.2012: Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Grade III in the Department of Irrigation. He died in harness on 5.1.2010 and therefore, petitioner moved an application seeking appointment on the post of Patwari that was available. The said claim was rejected vide order dated 2.2.2012 only on the ground that petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Patwari as only dependents of Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris can be appointed on the post of Patwari on compassionate basis. This question with regard to right of a person to claim appointment on the post of Patwari and that only dependents of Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris can be appointed on the post of Patwari on compassionate basis has already been considered by the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Raghvendra Rathore versus State of M.P.and others - 2010(3) MPHT 21 and the pol...
Baldev Prasad Gupta Vs. Smt.Lalita Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
F.A. No.168/2009 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.168/2009 APPELLANT Baldev Prasad Gupta s/o Radhelal DEFENDANT Gupta, Occupation Business, R/o Raipur Karchuliyan, P.S. and Tahsil Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT Smt. Lalita Devi w/o Sursari Prasad PLAINTIFF Mishra, Housewife, R/o Tandua, at present R/o Near Ratehra Petrol Pump, P.S. Raman, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri N.K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing :12. 12.2012 Date of Judgment :18. 12.2012 JUDGMENT { 18-12-2012 } This appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2009 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit ...
Vikas Shiksha Prasar Samiti Chhatarpur Vs. National Council for Teache ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19663/2012 Vikas Shiksha Prasar Samiti N.C.T.E.& others Chhatarpur 12.12.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.3 & 4. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P-4 dated 4.6.2012, by which the application of petitioner for grant of recognition was rejected mainly on the ground that there was an order of State Government dated 27.1.2012, by which the respondent no.2 was directed not to grant recognition/permission for D.El.ED., couRs.in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was possessing written permission from the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra, Bhopal dated 28.5.2011 Annexure P-5 in its favour, but inspite of this without looking into that, the application has been rejected. It is submitted that respondent no.2 may be directed to re-consider the matter after taking note of Annexure P-5. Th...
Neelam Kumari Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
WP No.15016 of 2012. 12.12.2012. Parties present. It was submitted by Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that vide Annexure-P/1, petitioner's result in three subjects namely; Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry were declared. Petitioner was declared pass in Anatomy and Physiology, but, was declared fail in Biochemistry. Thereafter these papers were revalued as per directions issued by the High Court in W.P.No.13275/2011 dt.24.1.2012, in which the petitioner was not party. But, because of revaluation of these three papeRs.the petitioner who was earlier declared as fail in Biochemistry was declared as pass, but, in the subject of Anatomy in which petitioner had appeared and was declared pass, was declared fail. It is submitted that the petitioner's appearance in the examination in the paper of Anatomy was the fiRs.attempt and not of second attempt and in fact second attempt was in respect of Biochemistry. In the fiRs.attempt, if the petitioner has been dec...
Jai Prakash Awasthi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Criminal Revision No.1660/12 12.12.2012. Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned PL for State. Heard. This petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to set aside the Order of JMFC, Jabalpur dated 17.08.12 (Annexure A/4) by which learned JMFC has rejected the application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.filed by petitioner and refused to release the vehicle in question on Supurdnama as it was seized in Crime No.332/12 for alleged offence punishable under Section 34/2 of Excise Act on the ground that 432 ltRs.of illegal liquor has been seized and the vehicle is subject to confiscation in view of provisions of Excise Act. Counsel for petitioner submits that vide Annexure A/1, petitioner has filed the copy of FIR lodged by him on 7.6.12 showing that petitioner is the owner of Bolero Jeep not MP19- T/1930 bearing Chassis No.72H42355, Engine not GF74H77349 which was stolen from his possession in the night of 7.6.12 and police has ...
Mulchand Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18727/2012 (Mulchand Prajapati versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Heard Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the compliant filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not issued any direction to the police authorities to blindly prosecute the respondent/the alleged accused but has only issued a direction to the police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. With the afo...
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20519/2012 (K.K.Gupta versus Collector, Narsinghpur and otheRs.12.12.2012 Heard Shri P.N.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 to decide the petitioner's representation regarding construction of a drain in front of the petitioner's house and for performance of other civic duties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of repeated request the respondents/ authorities are not taking any action in the matter or mitigating the grievance of the petitioner, therefore, they may be directed to do so. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2011 expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of furnishing a copy of the order passe...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »