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.
Kunj Raman Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.21569/2012 (Kunj Raman Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.20.12.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P.Rai, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petitioner is for a direction to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar to consider the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/3 dated 13.12.2012 wherein the petitioner has requested the authority concerned to consider and implement the general election programmes notified by the Registrar Cooperative Societies in respect of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rayguwan Branch, Garhakota District Sagar. The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner ...
Jawahar Lal Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.17959/2012 (Jawaharlal Gond versus State of M.P.& ors.) 20.12.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take up proceedings before the State against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in accordance with law and rules. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does take up the proceedings before the State within four weeks alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall thereafter decide the matter on merits and shall not dismiss the same only on the ground of limitation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
Heg Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.21338/2012 20.12.2012 Shri S. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the Assessing Officer, but not a notice has been issued for re-assessment under Section 148 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that the proposal is to include closing stock for the purpose of assessment which cannot be done as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the order passed in Commissioner of Income Tax Tamil Nadu v. M/S.Dyanvision Limited Civil Appeal No.197/2005. A photocopy of the same has been made available by the petitioner. It is submitted that main challenge of the petitioner is the same, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in (2012) 246 CTR 30.(MP).Considering the aforesaid, we direct Shri S. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions in the matter and file reply, if an...
Vijay Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.A.No.1443/2012 Vijay Kumar Patel State of M.P.& others 20.12.2012 Shri Anil Dwivedi, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.12.2012 passed by a writ Court in W.P.No.20640/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.9 Annexure P/1 was only an interlocutory order. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that by the order passed by the Collector, Shahdol Annexure P/12, the powers of Secretary vested in the appellant under Section 69(1) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 were revoked, but the respondent No.9 has wrongly interpreted this order as an order of suspension and on a wrong premises, the impugned order has been passed. From the perusal of the order Annexure P/1, we find that it is an interlocutory order and a revision is still pending before the respondent No.9. The matter is fixed for...
Smt. Kripa Awasthy Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
WA No.1427 of 2012. 20.12.2012. Shri B.K.Upadhyay for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for the respondents State. Shri Jagtendra Prasad for respondent No.6. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of the respondents State is accepted by Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA and on behalf of respondent No.6 by Jagtendra Prasad. Appellant to serve memo of appeal along with documents to the aforesaid counsel within a period of one week. Be listed for hearing in the month of March, 2013. Till next date of hearing the respondent No.6 shall not alienate/transfer the land which is shown in the map Annexure-P/14 as an open land, without seeking prior permission of this Court. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Yogendra (Yogesh) Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.A.No.1396/2012 20.12.2012 Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, Advocate for appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.7 by filing caveat. After hearing the parties, this appeal is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 is accepted by Shri Kaurav and on behalf of respondent No.7 by Shri A.P.Singh. Issue notice to the respondents No.5 and 6. Steps within a period of one week by R.A.D.Notices be made returnable by next date of hearing. Ad-interim writ:- Till next date of hearing, it is directed that the appellant shall be permitted to continue on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Lalpur, District Shahdol (M.P.).Be listed for hearing in the 2nd week of February, 2013. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Babulal Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 Writ Petition No.5274/2007(PIL) 20.12.2012 Shri P.N.Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for respondents no.1/State Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the respondents no.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a rejoinder today. However, the same is not on record. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 is directed to file an affidavit along with a chart pointing out the number of persons who have been provided employment, from the list of 121 persons, contained in annexure P/10. In the affidavit, reasons shall also be assigned as to why a particular person has not been found entitled for employment. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 28th January, 2013. (S.A.Bobde) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Kamta Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1....W.A.No.1337 of 12 Kamta Prasad Tiwari State of M.P.20.11.2012 Ms.Neelam Goel, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 2.11.2012 in W.P.18484/12 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against a show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Damoh for externment of the appellant from district Damoh under Section 5A of M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,1990, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that earlier also proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Section 6 of the same Adhiniyam and the District Magistrate had passed an order for externment of the appellant from district Damoh but in an appeal filed before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, the District Magistrate had dropped the proceedings but within a period of three months from the date of earlier order Annexure P-3 dated 19.6.2012, again a show cause...
Mukesh Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
W.P.No.10882/2007 20.12.2012 Shri Shashank Shekhar, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent no.1. Shri Anshuman Singh, counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4. On the last date of hearing a fact was brought to our notice that the Municipal Corporation is constructing the roads at a place where they are yet to lay down sewer lines. On raising this contention, we directed learned counsel for Municipal Corporation to apprise this Court the factual position. It is submitted by Shri Anshuman Singh that for the construction of sewer lines tenders were issued and the contract was finalised, but the earlier contractor left the work incomplete and not fresh tenders are being invited, which is a global tender of more than Rs.400/- crores. It is submitted that the aforesaid tenders have not been finalised, but to maintain the aforesaid roads, reconstruction of the roads which are not in good condition is necessary. It is submitted that Corporation cannot wait till the tender...
Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1 W.P.No.16168/2012 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »