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.
Kali Charan Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.NO.19076/2012 04-12-2012. Shri Vijay K.Pandey,learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate on advance notice for the State. An advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Development Department seeking applications from willing candidates for appointment to 313 vacant posts of Block Technology Manager. Applications were to be submitted on line with MP on line. com. The petitioner was a graduate in Agriculture having passed the said couRs.from Jawahar Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalay, Jabalpur and as per the mark sheet issued to the petitioner by the said university vide Annexure P-2, it is seen that the petitioner has passed the said examination with 68.10% marks. However, while filling up the application form for recruitment to the post through on line process, it seems that the petitioner committed a mistake in filling up the total marks received by him in the B.Sc. Agriculture examination, as a result the percentage of...
Bhurelal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.20326/2012 (Bhurelal Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.04.12.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents/authorities have not considered and decided the objections against nomination forms filed by the respondent Nos.8 and 9 for contesting election for the post of ward member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Jabalpur. It is submitted that both the aforesaid persons do not fall within the definition of agriculturist as has been defined under the provisions of the M.P.Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and has been elaborated and explained by this court in the case reported in 1991 MPLJ 55 Bhaskar Singh Raghuvanshi versus Harveer Singh Raghuvanshi and otheRs.however the authorities have deliberately not accepted the objections of the petitioner in order to favour the responde...
Kamal Suryawanshi Vs. Shri S.P.S. Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Conc. No.883/2012 4.12.2012: Shri Anish Chouksey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. This Court on 1.2.2012 disposed of the W.P.No.1552/2012 (s) directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others - (2006).SCC 1. Respondents on consideration has passed an order and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner not has came out with a case that rejection of his claim is not proper. Reason given for rejection of his claim is not correct and therefore, action for contempt be initiated. This Court has only issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. Tenability of the same cannot be gone into in this contempt proceedings. In case petitioner feels that the reasons given is not...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Saiyad Irfan Hasan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P No.19449 o04. 12.2012 Shri Awinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.14953/12, an application for grant of stay, on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, returnable by fixing a date within one month be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. In the available circumstances, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter and extend the opportunity of cross examination to respondents defendants to the other witnesses of the petitioneRs.plaintiffs, whose affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC have been filed at earlier stage. As an interim measure till next hearing of the petition, the trial court is directed not to proceed to record the defendants' evidence unless the order of this court. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bk...
Urmila Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P.19136 o4. 12.2012 Shri Rohit Sohgoura, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P. Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents No.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days, notice against admission of this petition as well as on interim relief, returnable by fixing the date in the fiRs.week of January,2013, be issued to respondent No.4 only, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. State counsel has taken notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, hence no further notice is required. He also undertakes to file the return on their behalf before next date of hearing. Petitioners counsel is directed to supply two additional sets of petition along with annexures to the Advocate General office within three days enabling such office to file the return in the matter. As an interim measure, till next hearing, the respondents authorities are directed not t...
Dilip Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
M.Cr.C.No.48/2011 4.1.2012 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. Heard on admission as well as IA. No.50/2012, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Looking to the note of the office that appeal was filed within time and therefore, there is no need of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, IA. No.50/2012, is hereby dismissed. Leave of appeal is sought against the judgment dated 5.9.2011 passed by FiRs.Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.172/2012 by which the respondents were acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.After considering the submissions made by learned Panel Lawyer and looking to the judgment passed by the trial Court it appears that deceased was wife of one Tirathlal, who was brother of respondent Nandlal whereas Meerabai was wife of the accused Nandlal. The marriage of the deceased took place 7 years prior to her death and thereore, no presumpti...
Smt. Savita Devi Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P.No.19248/2012 4.12.2012: Shri L.S.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Luvkush Mishra, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The dispute in question in this writ petition pertains to appointment of Aganwari Karyakarta to the Centre in question. Record indicate that the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, District Rewa issued an advertisement on 27.7.2009 calling for willing candidates to submit their applications for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Karyakarta. Petitioner and respondent No.6 applied for the post along with various others and submitted their documents. On the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, a merit list was prepared by the Janpad Selection Committee and in the said merit list petitioner was kept at Srl. No.1 and that respondent No.6 at Srl. No.2. Respondent No.6 submitted an objection to this list before the Dis...
Mani Ram Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
(1) Cr.A.No.2583/2000 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2583/2000 APPELLANT : Maniram S/o Suklal Caste Gwara (Ahir) aged 36 years Village Manpur Patel Tola Chouky Dora, P.S. Baihar Tahsil & District Balaghat. Versus RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Baihar District Balaghat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Date of hearing :27. 11/2012 Date of judgment:04. 12/2012 (JUDGMENT ) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11.7.2000 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.56/2000, convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/-. I...
Smt. Vandana Khairwar Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P No.3914/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3914/2003 PETITIONER : SMT. VANDANA KHAIRWAR Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate. For the respondent/ : Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer. State. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (04/12/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to him on 16.3.2003 seeking a reply from the petitioner in respect of complaint received by the authorities regarding issuance of a false caste certificate to the petitioner.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner infact belongs to the Khairwar, Scheduled Caste community, but is being unnecessarily harassed on account of false complaint. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kumari ...
R.V.Pandre Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
1 W.P.19462 o4. 12.2012 Shri Rajesh Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 10.10.12 Anenx.P/1 passed by I Civil Judge Class-II Bhopal in RCS No.912-A/08 dismissing his application filed under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC for calling some record from the record of respondent No.5 Society. In the couRs.of argument on admission on asking from the counsel whether after obtaining the copy of such proceedings or the resolution passed in the General Meeting or the Special Meeting of the Society were annexed along with the application under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC or prior to it, the same was filed before the trial court, on which, he fairly submits that no such copies were annexed or filed before such court as the same was not made available to the petitioner. On asking the petitioner counsel in which manner he tried to obtain...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »