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.
Sobhanlal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20044/2012 (Sobhanlal Sahu and another versus State of MP and otheRs.04.12.2012 Shri A.D Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.10.2012 by which work order has been issued to respondent No.7 by the respondent No.6. It is submitted that pursuant to the tender proceedings which were initiated in the month of December, 2011, the respondent No.7 being the highest bidder had been awarded the work to establish the weigh bridge on built operate and transfer basis. It is submitted that inspite of repeated opportunities the respondent no 7 has neither deposited the amount not has he executed any agreement with the respondent No.6 inspite of which the respondent No.6 is continuing to give time to the respondent No.7 even after passing of one year and has not issued the impugned work order on 20.10.2012 which ...
Mohanlal Gupta Vs. Radheshyam Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.12542/2012 03.12.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.P.Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of listing the case IA No.14077/12, an application of the respondents for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is disposed of. Petitioner's counsel seeks short adjournment for further preparation of the matter to make the submissions. Other side has serious objection in such adjournment because in view of earlier exparte order the respondents are not in a position to execute the decree and because of that they are deprived from getting the fruits of the decree. In the available circumstances as last indulgence by allowing the prayer of the petitioner's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 10.12.2012. It is also observed that subject to availability of time, this matter be disposed of on next hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Ram Kripal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Cr.A.No.2063/2010 03.12.2012 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for respondent. This case is listed for appropriate order on the question of default raised by the office. According to it, the appellant has not mentioned the particulars in IA No.22561/12, a repeat application for suspension of jail sentence regarding dismissal of his earlier application. Appellant's counsel by referring para (i) of Para 5 of the aforesaid IA said that such particular has been supplied in such application. After perusing such para, the default raised by the office is hereby ignored. not office is directed to place this matter for consideration of aforesaid IA in the week commencing 10.12.2012. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Bhanu Iron and Steel Company Limited Bisco Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20102.12 Writ Petition No.20102 of 2012 (Bhanu Iron and Steel Company LTD.versus State Bank of India, Bhopal) 03/12/2012 Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner . Heard. Orders dated 11- 10-20 12 and 31- 10-20 12 are being challenged vide this petition under Articl7. of the Constitution of India . Whereas, by order dated 11-10- 2012 Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT') posted the Secuterisation Application No.28 /1. for final hearing. By order dated 31- 10-20 12 the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'DRAT') in an Appeal not R-1 70 /2. has declined to interfere with the order dated 11- 102. . The interception was sought by the petitioner an applicant in a Secuterisation Application No.2811. on the ground that the DRT be directed fiRs.to dwell upon the preliminary objection as to the action of Creditor/Bank to proceed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act02. (for short 'the Act o2. )...
Satish Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Sarla Singhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.17907/2012 03.12.2012 Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as IA No.13906/12, 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 February 2013 be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Keeping in view the arguments of the petitioner's counsel that even after allowing the amendment application, recalling of the plaintiff's examined witnesses would not be necessary for their further cross examination, the trial court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial and extend an opportunity to adduce the evidence to the present petitioner with respect of the facts stated in the impugned application, Annexure P-3 because such facts are strictly based on statut...
Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.19419/2012 Guru Gobind Singh Educational State of M.P.& others Society 3.12.2012 Shri Pranay Choubey, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for respondents. It is stated in para 6.2 of the petition that the order Annexure P/4 was passed without any notice to petitioner though in the order in para 2, it is referred that a notice was issued to the petitioner and petitioner had not filed any reply to the notice. In view of specific averments made in Para 6.2 of the petition, we direct Shri Pathak, learned Dy.AG to seek instructions from respondent No.3 and to file specific reply whether any notice as is referred in order Annexure P/4 was issued and served upon petitioner. Case be listed for considering aforesaid contention in the second week of January, 2013. Ad interim writ Till next date of hearing, if petitioner deposits 50% of the amount of demand within a period of one week from today, respondents shall not take any coercive action against petitioner for recove...
Ali Raza Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Petition No.8167/2012 03.12.2012 Shri A. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for respondents. Heard on IA No.14860/12, petitioner's application for amendment in the petition. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and the petitioner's counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in this regard on the array of petition within three working days. Subject to such correction, office to proceed further. Also heard on IA No.14857/12, petitioner's application for taking documents on record. On perusing the documents the same appear to be relevant, hence by allowing the IA the same are taken on record. At the outset, petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.7196/12 and IA No.14590/12 having become infructuous. Considering his prayer the IAs are hereby dismissed as withdrawn and infructuous. Subject to aforesaid compliance this matter be listed after two weeks for admission and consideration of interim relief. (...
Rampal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.19977 / 2012 (Rampal Singh ..v...State of MP & otheRs.03-12-2012 Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to take up appropriate proceedings by availing of the remedy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. ( R.S.Jha ) Judge mct...
Anuroop Singhai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.18402/2012 Anuroop Singhai versus State of M.P.& ORS.03.12.2012 Shri Sameer Seth learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate objection before the competent authority under the Right to Information Act, regarding maintainability of the application filed by the respondents seeking personal information and bringing to the notice of the authority concerned the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande versus Cen. Information Commissioner and OtheRs.SLP (Civil) No.27734/2012 in this regard. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Devkinandan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.7366/2012 (Devkeenandan Yadav versus State of M.P.& ors.) 03.12.2012 Heard Shri Rameshwar P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing notice (Annexure P-1) dated 13.02.2012, by which the petitioner, a dairy owner, has been directed to shift his dairy outside the municipal area in view of the Cattle Regulations Rules, 2001 or in the alternative to provide proper arrangement so that the petitioner can run the dairy business smoothly. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice deserves to be quashed as the respondent authorities have not provided any alternative site to the dairy owners for shifting the dairy outside the municipal area and no orders on the representation filed by them have been passed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith th...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »