Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Bhagirath Vs. Anokhilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8068/12 (Bhagirarth and others versus Anokhilal and another) 27.06.2012 Heard Shri K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and stay. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17.03.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/11 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Harda whereby the appeal against the order rejecting injunction by the trial court has been partly allowed and it has been directed that till pendency of the suit the petitioners shall not sell or transfer the property in question. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 1st Additional District Judge, Harda has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction in interfering in the order of trial court rejecting the application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.filed by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that all the issues had been considered in detail by the trial court inspite of which the appellate court has interfered in the order w...
Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 W.P.No.8776/2012 Ramesh Kumar versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.06.2012 Heard Shri Anil Dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that inspite of orders passed by the Zila Panchayat, Umaria dated 7.5.2012 directing the SDO Manpur, District Umaria to initiate proceedings under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the Sarpanch respondent no.8, no action thereon has been taken by the said authority till date. As is apparent from the order annexures P-3 & 4, the aforesaid direction has been issued by the Zila Panchayat only on 7.5.2012. That apart, it is also clear that the petitioner has not approached the SDO Manpur bringing to his notice the fact that the Zila Panchayat has issued such a direction. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has directly approached this Court and has not given sufficient time to the SDO to receive and initiate proceedings ...
Mohanlal Soni Vs. Secretary M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8041/12 (Mohanlal Soni versus The Secretary, M.P.S.E.B.and otheRs.27.06.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction against the respondents to conduct an enquiry against the respondents No.4 and 5. It is submitted by the petitioner in the petition itself that he has already filed a petition for conducting enquiry and investigation against the respondent No.5 which is pending registered as W.P.No.18854/10 and inspite of pendency of the aforesaid petition the petitioner has not filed this present petition by stating that a direction be issued to the respondents for conducting enquiry against respondent No.5 who is going to retire on 31.07.2012. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has already taken up the issue before this court in pending petition i.e.W.P.No.18854/10, another petition ...
Govind Prasad Kori Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.4913/2004 27.6.2012 Shri Shobhit Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 5.5.2004 by which respondent No.3 the appointing authority has decided to compulsorily retire the petitioner treating him to be a dead wood for the department after completing 23 years of service in accordance to Rule 42 of the M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Petitioner at the relevant time when the impugned action was taken was working as Assistant Superintendent, Land Records, Collectorate, Seoni. Challenge to the order is made mainly on the ground that the decision to compulsory retirement is being taken by the appointing authority without referring the matter to the appropriate Screening Committee for scrutiny and without following the mandate issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/10 and P/11. It is pointed out that in accordance to the pr...
Ankit Khare Vs. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
27.6.2012 W.P.No.8783/2012, W.P.No.8568/12, W.P.No.8624/2012, W.P.No.8377/12, W.P.No.8632/2012, W.P.No.8631/2012 and W.P.No.8630/2012 Shri Anuwad Shrivastava, Shri Vipin Yadav, Shri M.A.Khan and Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri V.S.Shroti, learned senior counsel with Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. In this batch of writ petitions since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. The petitioners had appeared in the preliminary examination which was held for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class II in Lower Judicial Service of the State. An advertisement was issued by which applications were invited for the post of Civil Judge, Class II. A preliminary examination was held on 6.5.2012, the result of which was declared on 12.5.2012. Three questions namely question No.6, 61 and 95 were cancelled and consequently, revised result was declare...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Aditya Narayan Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
MCrC No.1785/2012. 27.6.2012. Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate, for the petitioners-State. Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for respondent. With consent, matter is finally heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order-dated 30.9.2011 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Cri. Revision No.139/11, setting aside the order passed on 6.7.2010 by the Empowered Officer viz. Conservator of Forests, Khandwa, whereby the order-dated 28.4.2008 passed by Licensing Officer, so far as it related to release of saw-mill machinery, seized for violation of sub-section (5)(c) of Section 6 and Section 9 of M.P.Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 [for short the Adhiniyam]., was annulled and the same was directed to be confiscated. As indicated already, the impugned order was passed in a case, registered as Cri. Revision whereas a bare perusal thereof would reveal that it was treated to be criminal appeal. However, ...
Ram Singh @ Sonu Vs. Wcfl and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.4833/2001 Ram Singh alias Sonu Vs. Western Coal Fields Ltd. & another ____________________________________________________________ Shri S.P. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (27/06/2012) Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2001 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It is contended that the petitioner was employed in the Western Coal Fields Ltd. (herein after referred to as W.C.L. for short) under the control of respondent No.2. A charge- sheet was issued to him on 2/3.11.2000 making allegations that the petitioner got himself employed by impersonating...
Lakhan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 W.P.No.8137/2012 Lakhan Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.06.2012 Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Jain 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent police authorities are not taking concrete steps towards further investigation into the crime registered against the respondents in which the petitioner's brother was brutally murdered. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 Superintendent of Police, Damoh to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served on him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the ...
Ramsahay Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 Cr.A. No.133 of 1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.133 OF 199.APPELLANT: Ramsahay, aged 46 years, S/o Laxmanlal Namdeo, R/o Rangraj Muhalla Naogaon, P.S Naogoan, Distt- Chhatarpur (M.P) Versus RESPONDENT: The State of Madhya Pradesh ****************************************************************** For Appellant : Shri Y.P Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer. ****************************************************************** JUDGMENT 27/06/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03/01/1996 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No.9/94 (EC Act), convicting the appellant under section 3(2)(c) read with Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short Act of 1955) for black marketing of kerosene oil and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/-.2. Facts of the case, in short, are that 16/06/1994 at about 1.30 p.m, (PW-4) made a compl...
Shri Gopal Gupta and ors Vs. the State of M.P. and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.3112/2001 & W.P.No.3358/2001 27.6.2012 Shri S.K.Garg and Shri D.N.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3. None appears for the remaining respondents namely the private society and the institute. As common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and as the relief claimed are also common, both these petitions are being decided by this common order. Petitioners in both these cases were appointed in the AdaRs.Janta Higher Secondary School, Chilhari, District Umariya, a School run by Vidya Vikas Samiti, Chilhari respondent No.5 in W.P.No.3112/2001. They were appointed in the year 1978, 1979 and by the impugned order passed on 31.5.2001 i.e.after a period of more than two years of their service have been terminated. Inter alia contending that they have been appointed in accordance to law after due selection by a properly constituted Selection Committee and before terminating their serv...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »