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.
Munnalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.2593/2008 Munnalal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.2674/2008 Tunda alias Bharat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt for the appellant Tunda alias Bharat Singh. Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the appellant Munnalal Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 25th day of June, 2012) Both the appeals are directed against a common judgment therefore, both the appeals are decided by a common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Tikamgarh in Special Sessions Trial No...
Smt. Ashok Kumari Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
W.P.No.16837/2010 25.06.2012 Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri V. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. Though a last opportunity was granted to the learned Panel Lawyer on 6.12.2010 to file the reply, but no reply is filed. Time and again learned Panel Lawyer sought time for the said purpose. On 5.3.2012, again as a last opportunity two weeks' time was granted to the respondents No.1 to 6 to file the return subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the petitioner by the next date of hearing, but till date no return has been filed. A prayer is again made for grant of time to file the return. Looking to the aforesaid conduct of the respondents authorities, it is directed that the Project Officer, Integrated Woman and Child Development Project Rampurnaikin, District Sidhi, shall remain prsent before this Court on the next date of listing to explain the default of not filing the re...
Ramdas Vaidya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR WP 4394/2010(S) RAMDAS VAIDYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4402/2010(S) MUNNA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 485/2007(S) KESr.CHANDRA AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4391/2010(S) RAMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4393/2010(S) SHAKUN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4399/2010(S) RAMSHREE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP 4400/2010(S) SUKHRANI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4403/2010(S) PARWATI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4410/2010(S) PUNIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 4412/2010(S) CHANDRAKALA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 11835/2010(S) SURESH KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 6449/2011(S) RAMKISHORE DUBEY Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SAGAR. WP 6450/2011(S) DURGA PRASAD RAJAK 3 Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SAGAR. WP 6452/2011(S) SATYANARAYAN NAMDEO Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SAGAR. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. --------------...
Ramesh Chandra Soni Vs. Smt. Durghatiya Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
W.P.No.9087/2012 25/06/2012 Shri K.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation on 4.5.2012 rejecting a prayer made by the petitioner for summoning certain documents from the Insurance Company, this writ petition is filed. Apart from the fact that the order in question is interlocutory in nature passed under the Workmen Compensation Act in a pending proceeding, the fact remains that the petitioner wants an Insurance Company to produce the Insurance Policy, the petitioner himself is responsible for producing the Insurance Policy as he is owner of the vehicle. That apart, the application filed by the petitioner in the court below indicates that particulars of the Insurance Policy have not been supplied by the petitioner. Taking note of all these factORS.this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order, that may be passed proceeding and at that time may raise all ...
Smt.Soniya Devi Lrs' of Rameshwar Prasad Chaturvedi vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P.No.7530/2011 Rameshwar Prasad Chaturvedi versus State of M.P.& ORS.22.06.2012 Shri D.S.Chouhan learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the fiRs.wife of the petitioner has died in the year 2008, the petition filed by him be disposed of and he be permitted to file a fresh application before the authorities seeking recording of the name of his second wife as the nominee in his service record. The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the application, if any, submitted by the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the respondent authorities. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner files an application before th...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Purshottam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.4273/2012 22/06/2012 Shri B.K.Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for the petitioner/State. Challenging an award passed by the labour court Jabalpur in Reference Case not ID18/2009 directing for reinstatement of the respondent employee without back-wages, this writ petition is filed by the State Government. Challenge to the award in question is made mainly on the ground that the employee in question is a daily wages employee and as his work was not required, therefore, his termination was proper. It is pointed out that there is a delay of more than 12 years in raising the dispute and, therefore, the award passed entertaining the reference after a period of 12 years is illegal. Finally, it is stated that the petitioner has not led adequate evidence to show that he has worked for 240 days in the calender year and, thereby, entitled for claiming the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records...
Mridul Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.19714/2011 Mridul Mishra State of M.P.And Others 22.06.2012 Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Tavrez Sheikh, Counsel for respondent no.3. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Counsel for respondent no.4. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the strike of Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Shaikshraktar Karmachari Sangh, Jabalpur as illegal.2) This Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the employees of RDVV, Jabalpur to come on work on immediately.3) This Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to take appropriate legal action against the persons/association involved in the strike. On notice, the case was listed on 12.03.2012. On the aforesaid date, the learned counsel for respondent no.4 made a statement before this Court that respondent no.4 Union or its members are no...
Nishant JaIn Vs. the Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Review Petition No.322/2012 Nishant Jain CEO and Another 22.06.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Shekhar, Counsel for the respodnents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that not the matter has been decided by respondent no.2. The petitioner has not participated for the measurement work and the objection of the petitioner has already been turned down. It is submitted that this review petition has rendered infructuous and may be dismissed. Shri Sankalp Kochar, appearing for the petitioner, made a statement that till date the petitioner has not received copy of the order dated 25.5.2012 and submits that he has become aware about the order today itself and prays that two weeks' time be allowed to the petitioner to approach the Arbitration Tribunal, to seek interim order in the matter and till then the ad interim writ issued earlier may continue. Shri Shashank Shekhar appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and su...
Rajkumar Patel Vs. Smt. Sushma Swaraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 E.P.No.43/2009 22.6.2012 Shri Manot Sharma, learned Counsel with petitioner present. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Counsel for respondent. I.A.No.10/2012 an application for permission to open the strong room and physical verification of the EVMs in the presence of representatives of the parties This application is filed by the Election Commission of India for seeking aforesaid permission. On being asked to the parties, they have stated that in the present case there is no dispute in respect of EVMs and the Election Commission may verify the EVMs or may use them for its purposes. In view of aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. The Election Commission is permitted to open the strong room, physically verify the EVMs and after verification of the EVMs may utilise them for its purposes. With the aforesaid directions, IA No.10/2012 is disposed of finally. It is submitted by the parties that hearing in this election petition will take ...
Shankar Pendaam Vs. Smt. Jyoti Dhurve
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 E.P.No.45/2009 22.6.2012 Shri Anand Nayak, Counsel for petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for respondent. Shri R.S.Dubey, Counsel for Election Commission of India. I.A.No.36/2012 an application for permission to open the strong room and physical verification of the EVMs in the presence of representatives of the parties This application is filed by the Election Commission of India for seeking aforesaid permission. On being asked to the parties, they have stated that in the present case there is no dispute in respect of EVMs and the Election Commission may verify the EVMs or may use them for its purposes. In view of aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. The Election Commission is permitted to open the strong room, physically verify the EVMs and after verification of the EVMs may utilise them for its purposes. With the aforesaid directions, IA No.36/2012 is disposed of finally. In this case, evidence is to be recorded after the evidence of election petitioner of Electio...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »