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.
Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20659/2012 (R.K.Jaiswal versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the rejection of petitioner's objection against acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.5 for contesting the election on the post of member of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pipariya, District Hoshangabd. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the against the rejection of the petitioner's objection, the petitioner has again filed a representation before the election officer, Hoshangabad, which has not been decided till date and in such circumstances, the respondent election officer be directed to decide the objection against the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.5. It is pointed out by the learned Dy A.G.appearing for the State/respondents that t...
Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18259/2012 (M.K.Mishra versus State of MP and otheRs.12.12.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents No.5 and 6 have filed a false complaint and affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Katni in complaint proceedings filed by them as a result of which the petitioner is being subjected to untold harassment. In the circumstances, he has prayed for a direction to the police authorities to take action against the respondents No.5 and 6. It is however, observed that the complaint case filed by the respondents No.5 and 6 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, FiRs.Class, Katni and the proceedings initiated by the Police are pending before the competent court in Maihar. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the courts concerned all the is...
Ranjeet Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20597/2012 (Ranjit Sharma versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Though the petitioner has filed this petition raising several issues, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department to take action on the direction issued by the higher authorities and the representation of the petitioner regarding release of Rs.9,85,660/-, which is the payment that has been withheld by the said authority without any rhyme or reason though the entire work has been completed to the satisfaction of the authority. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, t...
Virendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. Smt. Manju Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18631/2012 12.12.2012 Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/husband/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 21.9.2012, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Katni in Hindu Marriage Case No.54-A/2012 whereby allowing the application of the respondent- wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner- husband has been directed to pay her Rs.1000/- per moth as interim alimony till disposal of the petition. Besides this he is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses till filing the written statement and thereafter again Rs.1000/- on recording the evidence and subsequent to that again Rs.500/- before making final arguments in the matter. After taking me through the averments of the impugned order and the papers placed on record the petitioner's counsel argued the case on admission and allowing thi...
District Bar Association Jablapur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
1 W.P.No.6784/2006 12.12.2012 Shri Radhelal Gupta, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for State of M.P.Shri Ishan Mehta, Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Counsel for NHAI. Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms.Anjali Banerjee, Counsel for Cantonment Board. Shri Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that by order dated 14.11.2006, this Court had specifically directed the National Highway; Collector, Jabalpur; Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jabalpur and Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to remove encroachments on National Highway No.12A between Penty Naka to Barela and to see that such encroachments should not come back after their removal. It is submitted that width of National Highway is 150 feet, but it is under encroachments and as on date hardly there is 20 feet wide road for the public, rest is under encroachment. It was further submitted by Shri Gupta that though on an earlie...
Ambika Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Ambika Prasad Pandey versus State & ORS.W.P.No.20720/2012 12/12/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was granted charge of Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika, Birsinghpur, Satna. not by the impugned order, the charge is taken over and it is granted to Respondent No.5. Challenging the order passed giving charge to Respondent No.5 on various grounds, petitioner has filed this writ petition. However, it is seen from the records that claiming the charge, petitioner has already represented to the competent authority namely Respondent No.2 and the matter is pending before Respondent No.2. In view of the above, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within three weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if requires, shall also grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Respondent No.5 before taking any action. With the aforesai...
Arun Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20733/2012 12.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents. This petition is directed against a show cause notice Annexure P-1 dated 12/2012 by which petitioner has been asked that why his admission for M.B.B.S.CouRs.be not cancelled, as his photograph was not tallying with O.M.R.Sheet and admission form as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner why reply to show cause notice was not filed by the petitioner and petitioner has rushed to this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has asked for a copy of report so that he may submit his reply to the respondents but the aforesaid report has not been supplied to the petitioner. not he is apprehending that his admission may be cancelled by the respondents. For filing reply, a copy of report of Forensic Scien...
Mahendra Verma (Saket) Vs. Smt. Laxmi Saket
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19574/2012 12.12.2012 Shri B. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/husband/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 23.8.2012, (Ann. P-5) passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Rewa in Hindu Marriage Case No.21-A/2012 whereby allowing the application of the respondent- wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner- husband has been directed to pay her Rs.1000/- per moth as interim alimony till disposal of the petition. Besides this he is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent. After taking me through the record, impugned order and the papers placed on record the petitioner's counsel argued that inspite making efforts by the petitioner to bring the respondent in his home, she did not come, on which the petitioner filed the impugned petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Ac...
Smt. Shyama Bai Vs. Smt. Genda Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P No.17300 o12. 12.2012 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.13505/12, an application for grant of stay on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date in the fiRs.week of January 2013 be issued to the respondent. At this stage the petitioner's counsel submits that due to some misunderstanding of the his official Clerk without any order of the Court, the PF has already been paid in the Registry and prayed for appropriate direction to the Registry to utilize such process in compliance of the aforesaid direction. Considering such prayer, the office is directed to verify the aforesaid position and if it is found that PF has already been submitted without any order, then the same be utilized in compliance of the aforesaid order. As an interim measure the trial court is directed to proceed with the matte...
Awadh Kumar and ors. Vs. Narmada Prasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
M.A. 2177/2002 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava M.A. No.2177/2002 APPELLANTS 1 Awadh Kumar s/o Salakram Lodhi Plaintiffs 2. Hukum Chand s/o Salakram Lodhi 3. Manohar Lal s/o Salakram Lodhi 4. Kedar Prasad s/o Saligram Lodhi Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Narmada Prasad s/o Ramlal Lodhi Defendants 2. Uma Shanker s/o Narmada Prasad Lodhi 3. Gopal (since deceased) not by LRs:3. a) Smt. Sawatri Bai wd/o Gopal Lodhi (b) Mannulal s/o Gopal Lodhi (c) Durga Prasad s/o Gopal Lodhi (d) Leeladhar s/o Gopal Lodhi All above R/o village Barodiyakalan, Tahsil & District Hoshangabad (e) Smt. Ganpatibai w/o Salakram Lodhi R/o Palanpur Tahsil & District Hoshangabad (f) Kusumbai w/o Ganesh Ram Lodhi R/o Palanpur Tahsil & District Hoshangabad (g) Smt. Chhotibai w/o Bhairo Singh Lodhi, R/o village Bankhedi District Raisen.4. State of M.P. through District President Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad. M.A. 2177/2002 -2- ---------------------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »