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.
Anil Kumar Singhai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.A.No.432/2012 Anil Kumar Singhai State of M.P.& others 21.6.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. I.A.No.5877/2012 for taking additional documents on record. Alongwith the application appellant has filed copy of memorandum of association of Jabalpur Engineering College Society and as per the appellant, it will be required for adjudication of this appeal, hence the document filed by the appellant is taken on record. The matter is to be heard finally. Be listed for hearing in the 2nd week of August, 2012. Ad-interim writ issued earlier to continue till further ordeRs.C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
M/S Vighnesh Rubbers Vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.8415/2012 (M/s Vighnesh Rubbers versus M/s M.P.Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam & anr.) 29.06.2012 Heard Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been directed to hand over the plot No.67-J.situated at Industrial Area, Mandideep within a period of seven days. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed totally ignoring the fact that the petitioner's appeal against the order of cancellation is pending before the respondent No.2, therefore, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, while continuing the interim order passed by this court on 11.06.2012. It is observed that after taking time for seeking instructions, the respondents have not brought anythi...
Gyan Prakash Vs. N.K.Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1 Cont.P.No.1110/08 21.6.2012 Petitioner present in person. This contempt petition is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 30.7.2007 in Writ Petition No.28891/03 in which in Para 4, the Division Bench of this Court directed thus:- 4. We dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the respondents will comply with the provisions of Sections 136, 158(6) and 160 of the Act and file an affidavit of compliance once every three months before this Court for a period of one year. The respondents are also directed to notify in the news paper that information will available to the public under Section 160 of the Act as and when required. We have seen affidavit filed by the Secretary, Transport Shri Manish Shrivastava in compliance of the order dated 25.1.2012. In the entire affidavit, we find that there is no whisper in respect of compliance of the provisions as contained in Sections 136, 158(6) and 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the directions were issued to the Governme...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the Registrar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Writ Petition No.7547/2012 21.6.2012 Petitioner in person. Shri Tabrej Sheikh, for the respondent. The petitioner is a student of LL.B.Three Year Degree CouRs.which has six semester examinations with each academic session having two semesteRs.By this petition, he has mainly prayed that respondent be directed to declare the time table of 5th semester. Admittedly, the examination of the 5th semester has not commenced and the petitioner is appearing in the same. It is expected and hoped that respondent will declare the result of 5th semester examination as expeditiously as possible. The petition stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ss...
Smt.Rajshri Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1 W.A.No.438/2006 Smt.Rajshri Soni State of M.P.& others 21.6.2012 Shri Sanjay Patel, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents No.1,2 & 3. None for respondent No.4 though served. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.7.2006 by which writ petition no.3672/1996 filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid order on the following grounds:- (i) That the appellant was appointed on 14.2.1989 while the respondent No.4 was appointed on 1.1.1989 and without completion of period of 2 year's probation, he was made permanent on 25.5.1990 with effect from 1.1.1989, which order was contrary to the rule. (ii) That the respondents have promoted the respondent No.4 before completion of the period of probation on 7.7.1990 which was not permissible under the law. To appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we have perused the impugned order. From the perusal of the order, we find that contentions which are raised before this Court were not ...
Devendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
(1) Cr.A.No.2253/2007 Cr.A.No.2330/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C.Sinho CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2253/2007 1. Devendra Singh, son of Jagannath Singh Yadav, aged 36 years, r/o Rajendra Nagar, Gali No.5, Satna, District Satna, M.P.2. Ramkaran, son of Ramrudra Yadav, aged 26 years, resident of village Pahra, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot, at present resident of Atarra, Laxmi Guest House, District Banda (U.P.) ....Appellants -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Satna, M.P. .Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellants: Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Puspendra Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2330/20...
Om Prakash Nagar Vs. Appellate Authority and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.5671/2000 21/06/2012 Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Challenging the order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the appellate authority exercising powers under Section 58 of the M.P.Shops and Establishments Rules 1959 and challenging the action of Respondent No.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized absence, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed in the establishment of the respondent as a Gate Keeper w.e.f.1989 and his services have been dispensed with w.e.f.1.9.1997, it is stated that petitioner is victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and has suffered various complications and in view of the same, he was absent on certain dates and because of his absence, his services have been terminated without showing any reasons, without issuing any charge-sheet as required under the law. Inter-alia contending that the action taken is un...
Smt. Kusum Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1 W.P.No.8625/2012 21.6.2012 Shri A.K.Soni, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for respondents. It is stated by Shri Pandey that husband of the petitioner namely Harish alias Bablu Soni has been arrested by the police Mandla and he may be allowed short time to produce him before this Court. In view of aforesaid, we adjourn hearing of this petition for 3.7.2012, on which date respondents to produce the corpus of Harish @ Bablu Soni before this Court. If he is lodged in some jail, the authority shall produce him before this Court on the basis of order passed by this Court today. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy.A.G.for necessary action and compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
Nemichand JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER AND REGISTERED AS SLP(CRI.) No.5535/12 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 3.8.2012. MCrC No.7009/2012 21/6/2012 Shri J.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Chourasia, P.L.for respondent no.1/State. Shri Abhay Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2/CBI. None for the other respondents. Heard on admission. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).for making over the case pending as S.T.No.12/2008 before Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal to the Court of Session at Indore, for disposal according to law. In this regard, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order-dated 9/5/2012 passed by the trial Judge, rejecting the application moved on behalf of CBI, the respondent no.2 here, to make a reference, under Section 395 of the Code, to this Court for decision on the question of territorial jurisdiction of Court of Session to try a case committed by Special Court of Judicial Mag...
M.P.Roller Flour Millers Association Vs. Additional Director,mandi,m.P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.3008 / 1999 M.P.Roller Flour Millers Association, Bhopal & another ..Vs.Additional Director, Mandi, Bhopal & another 21-06-2012 Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.After arguing at length, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition and approach the respondent/authorities by specifically making factual and clear averments before the authority to the effect that the transactions in respect of which market fee is sought to be recovered are in relation to wheat which they had imported and that the transactions took place prior to 15-6-1997. In the circumstances, in view of the limited prayer made by the petitioneRs.without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent/authorities for redressal of their grievance. However, looking to the fact that the matter is of the year 1998-99, it is observed that...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »