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.
Munna Lal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.19146 o30. 11.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for the respondent/state on advance copy. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 6.9.12 Annex.P/8 and 26.12.06 Annex.P/6 passed by the Collector Tikamgarh in Revenue Case No.217/B-121/2011-12 whereby the land, as alleged, was alloted and given to the petitioner on Patta long before, has been transferred to the M.P.Tourism Corporation holding that no such Patta was granted with respect of such land in favor of the petitioner. In addition to it, some other prayer stated in para-7 of the petition is also made. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioners counsel that inspite the direction of the Collector in the impugned proceedings why the alleged Patta was not submitted before such authority, on which, the petitioners counsel fairly submits that the Patta was not given to the petitioner and therefore he ...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.19365/2012 03.12.2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to expunging of the remarks from the confidential reports, but not regrading the said ACRs for the purposes of consideration of the case of petitioner for promotion. It appears that while the petitioner was facing the departmental enquiry, certain Departmental Promotion Committee meetings were conducted for consideration of claim of promotion on the post of Assistant Commandant/ Deputy Superintendent of Police. It appears that later on the petitioner was informed about an Annual Confidential Report which in fact was coming in his way for promotion against which he made the representation. The representation is allowed by the order dated 12.5.2012 and adveRs.part of the Annual Confidential Report has been expunged. The effect of expunging has to be looked into by the departmental aut...
Mangleshwar Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
M.C.C.No.1357/2012 03.12.2012 Heard Shri Amresh Mishra,, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.17424/12. 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 31.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.17424/12 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.17424/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Prakash Vs. Sanjay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Misc.Cr.C.No.12030/2012 03.12.2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, Adv.for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar PL for respondent No.2 /State. Heard on the point of admission. This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Burhanpur (Presided in over by Ku. Sunita Siril Barlo) in Criminal Revision No.122/2011 affirming the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by J.M.F.C.Burhanpur in Criminal Case No.3619/10 whereby an application u/s 45 of the Evidence Act was rejected. In that case, cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken upon a complaint made by respondent No.1. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 creates a statutory presumption in favour of holder of dishonoured cheque and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption. However, fact of the matter is that application for forwarding the cheque to hand-writin...
Smt. Michu Kasde Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20101 / 2012 (Smt. Michu Kasde..versus State of M.P.& others.) 03-12-2012 Heard Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7-9-2012 passed by the respondent No.4, S.D.O., Betul confirming the resolution of no confidence motion passed against the petitioner, the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Basinda, Tahsil Bhainsdehi, District Betul. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an elected Sarpanch against whom a no confidence motion was moved by 15 Panchas pursuant to which a no confidence motion was held on 5-9-2012 in which 15 Panchas voted in favour of the motion while 5 Panchas including the petitioner voted against the same. It is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid the impugned order has been passed by the S.D.O.holding that the no confidence motion against the petitioner has been passed....
Tantulal Prajapati Vs. Surendra Hazari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 R.P.No.575/2012 3.12.2012. Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the applicants. Subject to order on admission the respondent No.1 to 15 are yet to be noticed. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for respondent No.16 and 17, on advance copy. Shri Ravi Ranjan, Advocate has given his appearance on behalf of respondent No.18 to 21. This case is listed for consideration of IA No.12161/12, applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing the impugned review petition for recalling the order dated 5.9.2008 passed by this Court in F.A.No.405/2005, as the same has been filed barred by three years and 283 days. In order to decide such application to examine the stack of litigation, in the available scenario on asking the applicants' counsel regarding locus-standi of the present applicants to file the review petition against the aforesaid judgment/ order of this Court because the present applicants were not the party in such appeal, the same wa...
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.19358/12. 3.12.2012 Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradumn Pare, learned counsel has voluntarily appeared on behalf of respondent no.1. He has also taken the notice of show cause notice as well as of I.A.No.14901/12. The presence of the respondent no.2 does not appear to be necessary in the matter because they are proceeded exparte before the Tribunal. Besides that, they being co-non-applicant with the petitioner in the trial Court, have not challenged the impugned order. In such premises, their presence are not required for adjudication of this petition. So, the notices against such respondents are hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that he did not have any objection if by imposition of reasonable cost on the petitioner, he is permitted to file the written statement at later stage. In view of the aforesaid submissions, instead to hear this petition on admission or on I.A.No.14901/12 the stay application, w...
Kusum Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.17888/2012 (Kusum Devi versus State of MP and otheRs.03.12.2012 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa wherein he has directed registration of an F.I.R.in respect of the misappropriation of Rs.eight lacs and the loss of documents which are not being made available inspite of the fact that several applications and opportunities were given to the concerned persons. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the S.D.O.can be assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority in accordance with law. In the circumstances, at this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner takes up an appropriate proceedings before the appellate authority within 15 days, the appellate authority be directed that the appeal of the petitioner may...
M/S Hira Trading House Anjuman Islamia Market Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20011 / 2012 (Ms.Hira Trading House ..Vs.Union of India & another) 03-12-2012 Shri Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the communication, dated 8-8-2012 by which the entry of the petitioner was banned in the premises although the petitioner has been supplying goods and trading with the respondents for the last 40 yeaRs.The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11-9-2012 by which the petitioner has been intimated that the petitioner is not enlisted in the office of the respondent as a firm for the purposes of local/direct purchase of stores/job ordeRs.From a perusal of the petition, it is, however, apparent that the petitioner has already approached the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur Zone, Jabalpur for mitigation of his grievance by filing a representation on 16-8-2012 but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till today. The learn...
Kamlesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.17886/2012 (Kamlesh Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.03.12.2012 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa wherein he has directed registration of an F.I.R.in respect of the misappropriation of Rs.eight lacs and the loss of documents which are not being made available inspite of the fact that several opportunities were given to the concerned persons. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the S.D.O.can be assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority in accordance with law. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall take up appropriate proceedings before the appellate authority within 15 days but the appellate authority be directed that the appeal of the petitioner may not be dismissed only on the ground of...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »