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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Arun Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.A.No.614/12 22.6.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for appellants. Shri Udyan Tiwari, Advocate present in Court appears for respondent. I.A.No.7505/12 for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order It is submitted by the appellants that certified copy of the impugned order is filed in W.A.No.539/12 which has already been admitted for hearing. It is further submitted that a common judgment was passed in all the matteRs.so the appellants may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order in this appeal. Considering the order passed in W.A.No.539/12, we allow this application and the appellants are exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari, learned counsel. I.A.No.7504/12 for stay Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Udyan Tiwari. He prays four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 26.7.2012 alongwi...
Smt. Shanti Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.8689 / 2012 (Smt. Shanti .v ..State of M.P.& otheRs.22-06-2012 Heard Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-6-2012 passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers for contesting the election for the post of President of Municipal Council, Nainpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the behest of his rivals who are politically dominant and has done so with a mala fide intention. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has accepted identical nomination papers filed by other contesting candidates but with deliberate intention to victimize and subject the petitioner to discrimination has rejected the petitioner's nomination papers and in such circumstances in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the c...
Syed Shaheed Ali Vs. M.P. Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P.No.8869/2012 Syed Shaheed Ali versus M.P.Wakf Board & ANo.22.06.2012 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the proposed nomination of the members of the Executive Committee of Anjuman-a-Islamia, Betul. As on date nominations have not been made and, therefore, the cause of action does not arise. Even otherwise, the remedy of the petitioner against the aforesaid proposed action of the respondents has statutorily been provided under the Wakf Act and in such circumstances I do not find any reason to entertain the present petition, at this stage, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up proceedings before the appropriate authority in accordance with law as and when cause of action arises. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Narayan Prasad Gour Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.7963/2012 22.6.2012 Shri Subodh Kathar, counsel for petitioner. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P-5 dated 26.3.2012 passed by respondent no.2 by which the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were finally decided. Against such an order a statutory appeal is provided under the Central Excise and Customs Act. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to file an appeal. Prayer is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
Rajendra Prasad Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P.No.8600/2012 R.P.Rajak versus State of M.P.& ORS.22.06.2012 Shri S.S.Sainger, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that his name has not been included in the final merit list published by the respondent authorities for making appointments on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner's name appeared in the fiRs.list published by the respondent authorities indicating that he has obtained 58.24 marks, however, subsequently the list has been revised and the petitioner's name does not appear in the said list inspite of the fact that the candidate whose name appeared in the top of the list has obtained less marks than the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation ...
National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramkumari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P. No. 15008/2010 22.6.2012 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel for respondent. With consent they are heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 21.11.2009 and review order dated 31.8.2010 passed by FiRs. Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Damoh in M.V.C No. 9/2009. The claim case was at the instance of respondent emanating from motor accident whereon Motor Vehicle Maruti Alto bearing registration No. MP EA 6738 turned turtle resulting in injury to the respondent/claimant who was the owner of the said vehicle. The claim as apparent from the application was under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Objections were raised by the petitioner/respondent as to maintainability of the said claim application under Section 163 A at the instance of owner of the vehicle fo...
Kamal Singh Vs. Union of India, Through the Ministry of Finance and Co ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.9811/2011 (Kamal Singh versus Union of Indian and another) 22.06.2012 Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Sr.counsel with Shri V. Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition for a sole relief of a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the parameters laid down in circular dated 25.03.2011. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition the matter has already been examined by the Assistant Registrar of Companies and a report has been submitted. In the circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is dispose...
Balram Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.8372/2012 (Balram Tiwari versus State of M.P.) 21.06.2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with the sole relief that the representation filed by the petitioner before the respondent authorities on 15.06.2011 against the order of sanction for prosecution which has been granted ignoring the fact that the request for sanction had been previously rejected be directed to be considered and decided by the respondent authorities. The learned Govt. Advocate has no objection to the same. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the sam...
Sangam Lal Dwivedi Vs. Kuladhipati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1 W.P.No.12431/2009 21.6.2012 Shri R.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee in the University in question in the year 1993. Subsequently he was substantively appointed as a Lab Technician in the then existing pay scale of Rs.825 - 1220/- on 30 th July, 1994 and his services were regularized w.e.f.4.1.93. It seems that while discharging his duties in the University petitioner applied and wanted to acquire the Degree of Ph.D.Permission was granted and the petitioner submitted the thesis and other documents for the purpose of awarding Ph.D.However, Ph.D was not awarded to him instead it was stated that the petitioner has indulged in submitting incorrect material and has prepared his thesis papers by use of fraudulent means and alleging "plagiarism" in the matter his services were terminated without conducting any enquiry vide order dated 20.11.2009 Annexure P/19. Challenging...
Rajesh Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Writ Petition No.11954/2011 Rajesh Pathak..Petitioner Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and othersRespondents For the petitioner : Shri V. K. Shukla with Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocates. For the respondents: Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV ****** ORDER (21.6.2012) The following order of the Court was passed by Ajit Singh, J.This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 30.6.2011, Annexure P12, passed by respondent no.3 Mining Officer, Balaghat, on behalf of respondent no.2 Collector, Balaghat, whereby petitioners auction bid has been cancelled with a direction of forfeiture of the security amount deposited by him.2. The petitioner is a mining contractor. Respondent no.2 issued a notice for auction of quarry of sand, which is a minot mineral. The area mentioned in the auction notice was 3.037 hectares bearing Khasr...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »