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.
Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
W.P.No.5703/2007 (Satyanarayan Sharma ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.26-06-2012 None for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he has been beaten up and his property has been destroyed by the respondent/officeRs.The respondents have filed a return and stated that they have already filed FiRs.Information Reports against R.I., K.P.Bhumarkar, Patwari, Ram Gopal Dubey, one Vinot Dubey and Chhotelal. The investigation is complete and the challan is going to be filed against them before the competent Court. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State that action for prosecuting against the aforesaid persons under the relevant provisions of law shall be taken by the respondent/authorities. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State which has also been mentioned in the return filed by them, I find no reason to keep the pet...
Shakti Pratap Singh Vs. Board of Secondary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
W.P.No.8886/2012 (Shakti Pratap singh versus Board of Secondary Education & ors.) 26.06.2012 Heard Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by rejection of his application for change of date of birth by respondent No.1 on the ground that he has not filed the same in the proper format. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in the prescribed format before the respondent authorities for correction of date of birth who shall consider the same expeditiously 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 upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rul...
Arun Kumar Bhowmik Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.482/2008) Arun Kumar Bhowmick & others Vs. Union of India and others Counsel for Petitioners Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for respondent Union of India Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate (Writ Petition No.929/2008) S.R. Chourasia and others Vs. Union of India and others Counsel for Petitioner Shri Kishore Roy, Advocate Counsel for respondent Union of India Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate (Writ Petition No.17536/2007) Pradeep Kumar Bhowmick and others Vs. Union of India and others Counsel for Petitioner Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for respondent Union of India Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV O R D E R (26/06/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : This order shall govern final disposal of W.P. Nos. 482/2008, 928/2008 and 17536/2007. These petitions are directed against a 2 W.P. No.428/2008 ...
Prembai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1036/11 and Criminal Revision No.1038/11 26.06.2012. Shri D.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for State. Learned PL appearing for State submits that SDO (Forest).Sehore could not appear due to ailment of his wife. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite opportunity, SDO (Forest) is not appearing. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. The petitions are directed as against judgment dated 17.03.11, passed by JMFC, Sehore on 17.3.11 in Criminal Case No.224/07 with respect to petitioner Nand Kishore of Criminal Revision No.1038/11, and Criminal Case No.225/07 with respect to petitioner Prembai of Criminal Revision No.1036/11 by which teak wood has been ordered to be confiscated even in the case of acquittal of petitioneRs.1.342 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood has been found in possession of petitioner Nand Kishore and .866 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood was found in possession of petitioner Prembai . Learned...
Nandkishore Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1036/11 and Criminal Revision No.1038/11 26.06.2012. Shri D.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for State. Learned PL appearing for State submits that SDO (Forest).Sehore could not appear due to ailment of his wife. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite opportunity, SDO (Forest) is not appearing. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. The petitions are directed as against judgment dated 17.03.11, passed by JMFC, Sehore on 17.3.11 in Criminal Case No.224/07 with respect to petitioner Nand Kishore of Criminal Revision No.1038/11, and Criminal Case No.225/07 with respect to petitioner Prembai of Criminal Revision No.1036/11 by which teak wood has been ordered to be confiscated even in the case of acquittal of petitioneRs.1.342 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood has been found in possession of petitioner Nand Kishore and .866 Ghan Mtr.of teak wood was found in possession of petitioner Prembai . Learned...
indira Mahila Bhahuddesiya Shahkari Samiti Maryadit Keshli Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
1 W.P.No.8319/2012 Indra Mahila Bhahuuddesiya Shahkari Samiti Maryadit & Ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.26.06.2012 None for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. From a perusal of the petition it is clear that the petitioners have filed this petition on an apprehension and no cause of action is discernable from a reading of the petition and the documents filed alongwith it. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in case any cause of action arises or survives. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
M/S Sanee Ingrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. M.P. Rural Road Development Auth ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
R.P.No.508/2012 25/06/2012 Shri Anuj Puri, learned counsel with Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the Non- applicants. Seeking review/ recall of an order passed by this Court on 9.12.2011 in Arbitration Case No.5/2011, this application is filed. While disposing the application filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on 9.12.2011, this Court had made an observation while granting liberty to the applicant to approach the Arbitral Tribunal to the effect that the question of limitation shall be considered by the tribunal keeping in view the pendency of proceedings before this Court and the uncertain legal position with regard to jurisdiction at that point of time. Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the condonation of delay in the light of the observation made by this Court on 9.12.2011 in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balbeer Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Criminal Appeal No.950/2012 25.6.2012 Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ appellant. Smt. Varsha Kothari, counsel for the respondent. The appellant State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.5.2011 passed by Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special case No.237/2006 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 456, 323, 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.10.2006 at about 8 p.m.in the evening, the prosecutrix was making food for her family members in her house, situated at village Patori, Police Station Baldevgarh, District Tikamgarh. Her husband and father-in-law had gone to attend the meeting of Panchayat. The respondent came inside the house and held both the hands of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix made hue and cry, so the respondent ran away from the house. In scuffling, some bangl...
S.S. Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
W.P.No.13460/2010 25/06/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.K.Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Petitioner was working as a Chief Municipal Officer, Class-B in Municipal Council Chhatarpur, on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired on 31.7.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that no departmental enquiry and criminal case was pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement and inspite of the fact that there is nothing preventing the respondents from paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner, only 90% of the amount as pension has been paid, even after lapse of three years of retirement. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2010. Notices have been issued to the respondents and even though the petition is pending since two yeaRs.respondents have not filed any reply. Shri Abhishek Arjariy...
Vishnu Datta Padraha Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
1 W.P.No.8789/2012 Vishnu Datta Padraha versus Municipal Corporation & ORS.25.06.2012 Heard Shri Samdardhi Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the present petition regarding allotment of contract for security services by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be furnished on them by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any o...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »