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.
M/S Hindusthan Vidyut Products Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
---1--- W.P.No.12869/2010 12.12.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, Sr.Counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the State. It is not disputed by Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioner that challenge to the vires of the statute has been repelled by the Supreme Court in Duncans Industries LTD.versus State of U.P.and others reported in AIR 200.SC 35.and in Veena Hasmukh Jain and another Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1999 (5) SCC 725.hence it is not necessary to go into the question of vires again, hence this petition is disposed of. (S.A.Bobde) (M.C.Garg) Chief Justice Judge PB ---2---...
Zila Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Mydt. Vs. the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.14772 / 2012 (Zila Sahakari Thok Upbhokta Bhandar, Umaria ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.12-12-2012 Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5 to consider and decide the petitioner's application, seeking registration of their society under the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 pending before him since 22-7-2011. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner's aforesaid application dated 22-7-2011 shall be considered and decided by the concerned authorities expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Umaria, to the e...
Gyanendra Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
1 W.A.No.1383/2012 Gyanendra Prasad Dwivedi State of M.P.& others 12.12.2012 Shri M.K.Tripathi, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents. This appeal is directed against two orders dated 31.10.2012 and 21.11.2012 passed by the Single Bench, which read as under:- 31.10.2012 Shri M.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the caveator. The petitioner is directed to file the entire record and order sheets of the case in which the Collector has passed the impugned order to establish that the show cause notice was neither issued not received by the petitioner, within a week. In case the documents are filed within a week, petition be listed in the week commencing 19.11.2012. 21.11.2012. Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brahjmendra Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.5 The learned counsel for respondent no.5 enters appearance and prays for and is granted two weeks time to file a reply to...
Ram Manohar Lohiya College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.17277/2010 12.12.2012 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. The controveRs.is short one. The petitioner was running B.Ed. courses on the building, which was constructed on Survey Nos.135, 137 and 138 Barkheri Kalan, Bhopal. Thereafter petitioner constructed a new building on Survey Nos.272/1, 273/1, 493/1, 495/1/2 and 493/1/49 of village Barkheri Kalan, Neelbad Road, Kalkheda, Bhopal. The petitioner had applied for inspection of new premises to the respondents so that petitioner institution may shift its college in the new premises. It appears that in place of inspecting new premises, old premises were inspected and recognition to the petitioner institution was not granted. This has caused the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this petition. On 18.01.2011 apart from other directions, this Court also issued directions No.4 and 5, which reads thus:- "4. In...
Ram Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
---1--- W.P.No.7243/2009 12.12.2012 Shri Indrajeet Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.S.Shroti, Sr.Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti for the respondent. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. The petitioner has challenged advertisement dated 29.6.2009 issued by the respondent for recruitment of Civil Judge Class-II on the ground that it is unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, the respondent could have provided for relaxing maximum age of 35 years by another 10 years for handicapped persons. The petitioner has also claimed entitlement to relaxation of additional 2 years on the ground that the petitioner is a Green Card holder. The Green Card is issued by the State Government to persons, who have undergone family planning operation. We find that there is already a power to relax age limit by period of 2 years to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC category. We see no reason why the advertisement can be said to be unconstitutional because the...
The Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistics Corporation Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18077 / 2012 (The Madhya Pradesh Warehousing & Logistics Corporation & others ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.12-12-2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Arulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the caveator. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the intervener. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the during the pendency of the present petition the petitioners had filed M.C.C.No.1385/2012 seeking clarification of the order dated 13-2-2012 passed in W.P.No.8434/2010 and connected matters and the learned single Judge has allowed the said application filed by the petitioners by order dated 5-12-2012 by passing the orders and issuing the following directions :- When this Court in the original writ petition, on 13.2.2012, directed for determining the rent or the amount of requisition under section 4, it was the intention of this Court that the Collector concerned shall fiRs.f...
Smt. Kasturi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.20792/2012 (Smt. Kasturi Bai & anr. versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Heard Shri P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police authorities are not conducting a proper investigation and enquiry into the instance of death of one Raju Chouhan relating to which one Nitesh Kuchbandiya has infact confessed before the investigating officeRs.in spite of which the police authorities are trying to prosecute the sons of the petitioner and her husband by manipulating the evidence under influence of the local MLA Vijay Pal Singh and other politicians. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, it is submitted that the police authorities be directed to conduct a proper investigation and take appropriate steps on the representation filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad. Looking to the allegations and the limited prayer made by the learn...
Mamta Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.4864/2007 (Mamta Pathak versus State of MP and others ) 12.12.2012 Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the return filed by the respondents and averment made in paragraph 3 thereof, as the petitioner has been given seniority over Shri Umashankar Nagaich by order dated 02.02.2009, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition which has been rendered infructuous. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ashish @ Sanu (Patariya) Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.8414/2012 Ashish @ Sanu State of M.P.& others 12.12.2012 Shri Zafar Khan, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Mohit Namdeo, counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5. None for respondent no.6, as he has not been served till date. Shri Raghuvendra Dwivedi, S.H.O.and Ms.Kanchan Singh, Lady Head Constable, Police Station Kotwali, Panna are present. They have produced corpus of Babita, wife of petitioner before this Court. Smt.Jiya Khan has filed an application stating that she is Babita, for permission to intervene in the petition. Shri P.S.Gaharwar, counsel is appearing for her. We have gone through the application and considering the controveRs.involved in this case, we permit intervention of Smt.Babita @ Jiya Khan in this case. Accordingly, I.A.No.16039/2012 filed on behalf of Smt.Jiya Khan is allowed. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel for State submitted that Smt.Babita @ Jiya Khan is major, aged about 21 yeaRs.She herself left the hous...
Rama Shankar Pandey Vs. S.K.Paul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Con.C.No.1109/2011 12.12.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari, counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the matter is in active investigation of respondent. The complaint which is on page 11 is in two parts. In fiRs.part 11 allegations are made, in regard to which the investigation is complete. So far as second part is concerned various N.G.O.s are involved, including the N.G.O.s of New Delhi, so investigation in this regard would take further six months. It is submitted that further six months time be allowed to respondent to complete the investigation. On raising such contention, Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the investigation is against one Shri R.N.Saxena, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, whose wife Smt.Sangeeta Saxena is running N.G.O.The respondent no.4 and the State Government are regularly releasing funds to Smt.Sangeeta Saxena and if such a longer period is allowed to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »