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.
Sanjay Sahu @ Pappy Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.20815/12 (Sanjay Sahu @ Pappy versus State of M.P.and otheRs.20.12.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the police authorities are not taking action against the respondent No.5 inspite of the complaint filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, 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 appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to take up the proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court . In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigation of his grievances, if so advised...
Dharm Raj Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Appeal No.1095/2012 20/12/2012 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondents-State. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants being daily rated employees can not be transferred in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Tiwari versus Madhya Pradesh Text Book Corporation and other (W.P.No.1967/2003).It is submitted that the wrong facts were stated in the reply, while real position is different. In view of the aforesaid, Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Government Advocate is directed to file reply in the matter within two weeks. Be listed for hearing along with W.A.No.1119/2012 for analogous hearing. Till next date of hearing, status-quo as on today in respect of the posting of appellants be maintained by the respondents. CC as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju...
ies College of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical Educatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.P.No.20220 o20. 12.2012 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course. It is further submitted that earlier a Division Bench had passed an order by which permission to run the couRs.of Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) CouRs.was stayed but that order has been modified and clarified by the Division Bench so at present there is no bar for applying or for extension of the course. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for extension and/or for fresh grant of approval in respect of Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that subject to decision of this petition, the respondents are ready to accept the aforesaid application. In view of the...
Shiv Prasad Vs. Western Coalfilelds Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.5251/2012 Shiv Prasad Vs. The Western Coal Field Ltd. & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri R.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (20.12.2012) The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that his right date of birth was not recorded in the relevant document and only on the basis of wrong recording of date of birth in the statutory document, i.e. Form-B, the petitioner is sought to retire w.e.f. 31st December, 2012. It is contended that the representations in this respect were made but since the same are not considered, the petitioner is required to approach this Court.2. The contentions of the petitioner are that he was initially appointed in the services of ...
Smt. Anjana Minj Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.20799/2012 Anjana Minj versus Union of India & ORS.20.12.2012 Shri Amrit Lal Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner's complaint before the Grievance Redressal Cell filed by her against the allotment of LPG outlet to respondent no.4 has not been considered and decided till date as a result of which the respondent no.4 is enjoying benefits which he is, otherwise, not entitled in accordance with law. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, who has been directed to accept notice on advance copy, submits that the matter pending before the Grievance Redressal Cell shall be considered and decided in accordance with law at the earliest. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition f...
Upma Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.17350/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA respondents/State. This order shall decided W.P.No.15522/12, W.P.No.16168/12, W.P.No.16718/12, W.P.No.17128/12, W.P.No.17350/12 and W.P.no.18788/12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controveRs.of this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13890/12-Ku.Vidhya Parashar versus State of M.P.& others decided on 20.9.2012. It is further submitted that the aforesaid position is not disputed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).these cases may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).The order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra) may be referred which reads thus:- A prayer is made by the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in this case is identical to the facts of Writ Petition No.15025/2011 Smt.Vartika Tripathi versus State of M.P.decided on 7.8.2012 and similar directions may be issued in the case. Shri P.K.K...
Smt. Mushtar Sultana Vs. Mahmood Ahmed Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.20954 / 2012 (Smt. Mushtar Sultana ..Vs..Mahmood Ahmed Khan) 20-12-2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 3-12-2012 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is aggrieved only by that part of the order passed by the court below whereby his request for taking the photocopy of the written statement filed by the respondents in C.S.No.11-A/1984 on record has been rejected wherein it is stated that the respondent had admitted that the property in dispute did not belong to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid document is material for adjudication of the dispute but the Court has rejected petitioner's request on the ground that allowing the request would result in delay in deciding the suit w...
Rajkumar Chawda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.15522/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Vivek Shukla, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA respondents/State. This order shall decided W.P.No.15522/12, W.P.No.16168/12, W.P.No.16718/12, W.P.No.17128/12, W.P.No.17350/12 and W.P.no.18788/12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controveRs.of this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.13890/12-Ku.Vidhya Parashar versus State of M.P.& others decided on 20.9.2012. It is further submitted that the aforesaid position is not disputed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).these cases may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra).The order passed in Ku.Vidhya Parashar (supra) may be referred which reads thus:- A prayer is made by the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in this case is identical to the facts of Writ Petition No.15025/2011 Smt.Vartika Tripathi versus State of M.P.decided on 7.8.2012 and similar directions may be issued in the case. Shri P.K.K...
Prakash Chandra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Writ Petition No :21310. 2012 Prakash Chandra versus State of MP and others 20.12.2012. Shri Anshuman Singh for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that inspite of the order passed on 27.7.2012, in Writ Petition No.11351/2012, representation of the petitioner has not been decided till date, the competent authority of the department is directed to decide the representation after taking note of the disability expressed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. While deciding the representation, the physical disability of the petitioner and the prayer made for certain alternate adjustment shall be taken note and a decision taken. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
M/S Sadbhav Engineering Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.21451/2012 (M/s Sadbhav Engineering LTD.versus State of MP and otheRs.20.12.2012 Heard Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Seoni under section 247 (7) of the M.P.Land Revenue Code. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order the petitioner has alternative efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of M.P.L.R.Code. No extraordinary reasons, circumstances exist for entertaining this petition and deciding the disputed questions of fact which even otherwise cannot be gone into by this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available to him under the law. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »