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.
Betul Oil Limited Vs. Hdfc Bank Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.4033/2012 04.12.2012 Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brain D'Silva learned senior counsel assisted by Shri N. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Heard on IA No.15052/12. As per cause title this is the joint application reporting amicable settlement of lis between the parties outside the court with prayer to grant permission to withdraw the captioned writ petition. The same is signed by the Director of the petitioner No.1 as well as his counsel Shri Satish Agrawal. As per averments of the application, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed. Other side did not have any objection in allowing such IA and dismissal of the writ petition accordingly. On consideration for the reasons stated in the application by allowing the same this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. Parties to bear their own costs. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Rajendra Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
Conc. No.1044/2011 4.12.2012: Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 13.9.2010 in W.P.No.11435/2010 have not been complied with, this application has been filed. It seems that petitioner submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur with regard to certain tampering with a cheque and therefore, he filed a complaint. On the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur has not looking into the complaint and not taking any action, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the matter and take action. not from the report submitted by the respondents as is evident from the material available on record, it is clear that a proper enquiry has been conducted by the authorities of the Police Station concerned and report has been submitted by the Supe...
Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sugaraha Gunour Panna Vs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.19442/2012 04.12.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 5. With the permission of the court, the petitioner's counsel has scored out the name of Presiding Officer of respondent Nos.3 and 5 from the array of the petition. Accordingly the same is certified. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 shall remain on the record only in the name of their designations. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 12.10.2012, (Ann. P-30) bearing No.1992/12-13 passed by the respondent No.3- SDO, Gunnour, district Panna and the order dated 30.10.2012 (Ann.P-36) issued by the respondent No.8, Samiti Prabandhak to the President of the petitioner society whereby respondent No.3 has constituted Nigrani Samiti to look after the affairs of the alleged Fair Price Shop and also allowed Krishna Pyare Pathak to remain present at the time of selling the goods from the alleged fair price shop of the peti...
L.N. Mittal College of Education, Itarsi Vs. National Council for Teac ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.13539/2012 L.N.Mittal College of Education, N.C.T.E & others ItaRs.1 4.12.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. The facts of the present case are peculiar. The petitioner herein filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.No.10664/2011 and was finally disposed of on 1.12.2011 by an order, which reads thus :- 1.12.2011 Shri Vikas Tiwari, counsel appears on behalf of Shri Sankalp Kochar for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri S.P.Rai, Government Advocate for respondent no.3. The petitioner is an educational institution. On 31.10.2009 it made an application to the Regional Committee (respondent no.2) for seeking recognition for starting D.EL.ED course. The application was made under section 14 of the N.C.T.E.Act, 1993. The institution was inspected on 27.5.2010 by a visiting team. The Regional Committee, however, in its meeting decided to re- inspect the petit...
Ranveer Singh Arya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-2012
W.P.No.19841/2012 (Ranveer Singh Arya versus State of M.P.& ors.) 04.12.2012 Heard Shri M.Kushwaha, 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 complaint filed by the petitioner regarding some alleged fraud committed by the respondent No.4 regarding agreement to sale of mine which did not belong to him. Apparently the dispute between the parties relates to sale of mine and, therefore, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the competent forum and in such circumstances, this court cannot issue any direction to the police authorities. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioner is required to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of th...
Poonam Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.19211/2012 3.12.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak to the Panchayats. Against the order of appointment to the post in the Panchayat, petitioner has remedy of an appeal as contemplated under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995. As statutory appeal is available under the Act of 1995, a writ petition directly before this Court bypassing the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available as per the statutory provision of the scheme, this petition is disposed of. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra...
Ramesh Janghela Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
ramesh janghela versus state W.P.No.19900 3. 12.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Tahsil to another. Even though various grounds are raised challenging order of transfer, but considering the fact that a detailed representation submitted by petitioner assailing the transfer is still pending consideration before the competent authority, without entering into the controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of 4 weeks. If representation has not been presented, the same be submitted along with copy of this order within a period of one week. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid the petitions stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judg...
Kamal Kishore Gulati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20147/2012 (K.K.Gulati and others versus State of MP and otheRs.03.12.2012 Heard Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that they are being subjected to harassment by the police pursuant to the investigation being carried out into the case registered by the private respondents at crime No.61/12 at Police Station Bari District Raisen regarding disappearance of Durga Bai and the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 Sachin. It is stated that the petitioners are willing to give full cooperation in the investigation to the police and have been doing so inspite of which the police visits their house and place of work at ungodly hours subjecting them to unnecessary harassment. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the police is investigating crime No.61/12 registered against son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the police is bound to...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Cr.R.No.2056/2012 03.12.2012 Shri Arubendra Singh, Adv.for the applicants. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, PL for respondent /State. Heard Finally. This Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C.has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan district Satna in Sessions Trial No.251/2008 by which application u/s 311 Cr.PC has been rejected. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that important question was could not be asked from Doctor about causing injury. Though it has been alleged that question was asked but answer could not come . Learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the prayer and submits that once witness was examined he can not be re-examined for limited purpose how the injury could have been caused. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the principle that justice should not be done but it seems to have been done and no body could be punished without being provided proper opportunity hence this petition is allowed ...
Mamlesh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20034 / 2012 (Mamlesh Sharma ..Vs.State of MP & otheRs.03-12-2012 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for refund of the security amount and the F.D.R.which he had deposited for grant of quarry lease, the period of which is already over. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of approaching the concerned respondent/authorities repeatedly, the said amount has not been released to the petitioner till date. From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has already approached the respondent/authorities by filing a representation for release of the aforesaid amount which is pending before the Collector, Seoni. The learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents submits that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent/authorities, the same shall be considered and d...