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.
Sarju Prasad Vs. District Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1 W.P.No.8452/2012 21.6.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the order passed by the Collector denotifying the petitioner from the post of Secretary on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is mainly made on the ground that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary is terminated without conducting any enquiry and without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of the M.P.Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that under the provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules if an employee is convicted or is kept in custody for more than 48 houRs.he can only be suspended and thereafter his services as Panchayat Secretary are to be brought to an end then the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 has to be followed. In this ...
Kaluram @ Kallu Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1986/2002 Kaluram @ Kallu VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Jagdish Sakle, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in S.T.No.645/1995, by which the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and sentenced for one year's Rigorous Imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 19.5.1995, the complainant Ramanand (P.W.3) was lying on his bed (Charpai) in front of his house at village Pipariya, Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur. His wife Radha Bai (P....
Durga Prasad Kewat Vs. the Chief Mechanical Engineer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.2971.10 Writ Petition No.2971 o21. 06/2012 Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Soni, learned counsel for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15- 01-2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this petition. By the impugned order the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No.1110 of 2009 which was directed against the order dated 08-12-2006 whereby in a revision the punishment to the petitioner was enhanced from stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect to that of reducing pay to one stage below for a period of three years with non-cumulative effect in the same time scale. Relevant facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that the petitioner, Technician (mechanical) Grade-I, Carriage and Wagon Rack Maintenance, West Central Railway, Jabalpur, was detailed on 07-05- 2006 on duty between 0 hours to 8.00 A.M.That between 4-5 A.M.on 07-05-2006 on an inspection being c...
Naresh Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.A.No.1184/2009 Naresh Pathak State of M.P.& anothe21. 6.2012 Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, counsel for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.11.2009 in W.P.No.11048/2009, by which writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs was dismissed :- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order and accordingly the respondents may kindly be directed to return back the security money/earnest money with interest. (ii) It is, therefore, prayed that the lease cancelled by the respondent No.1 be set aside. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that in the writ petition, appellant had prayed for refund of security amount for which there was no order of forfeiture and the appellant was entitled for refund of security amount, but th...
M.S. Bindra and Sons P.Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 W.P. No.6481/2012 M.S Bindra & Sons vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 20.06.2012 Shri P. C. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J. K. Pillai learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to take up the statutory remedy available to him under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is further directed that in case the petitioner takes up the aforesaid proceedings within fifteen days from today, the matter shall be heard and decided on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Ramlakhan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.A.No.534/2012 Ram Lakhan Patel State of M.P. And others. 20.06.2012. Shri V.P.Nema, Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.4.2012 passed in W.P.no.6587/2012 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal under Section 44 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the mutation order was passed without notice to the appellant and the aforesaid order was illegal as the appellant was co-bhumiswami of the land and his name was recorded in the revenue record. He was also entitled for the notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that against the order Annexure P/1( in writ petition), the appellant herein had preferred a first appeal but remained unsuccessful .Against such an order, a remedy of filing 2nd appeal is provided under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenu...
H.B.P. Shukla Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Company Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No.6691/2012 20.6.2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. K. Pandey, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure P/21 dated 28.3.2012 interlocutory in nature passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, granting certain interim relief to the respondent No.7 who was working as a Panchayat Secretary, this writ petition has been filed. Record indicates that respondent No.7 was working as Panchayat Secretary and on various grounds his services were dispensed with. The matter was challenged before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal and the matter is now pending before the Additional Commissioner. Finding a prima facie case made out for staying the order of Collector and the consequential termination, the Additional Commissioner has passed the impugned order and on the perusal of the impugned order indicates that various reasons are given by the Commissioner for interfering into the matter at the interlocutory s...
Devi Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1845/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1845/1996 Devi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 20th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.10.1996 in S.T. No.71/94 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced for four years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of paymen...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Devendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR ELECTION PETITION NO.7/2009 Rajesh Kumar Petitioner vs. Devendra Singh Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manoj Sharma with Rajmani Mishra, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Imtiyaz Husain with Shri R.B. Patel, Advocates for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing :27. 3.2012 Date of Order :20. 6.2012 ORDER This order shall govern disposal of I.A. Nos.3/11, 4/11 and 47/11.2. In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent to the M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No.143, Silwani has been called in question on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper, as contemplated in sub-section (1)(c) of S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act).3. The petitioners nomination paper, a copy of which has been tendered in evidence as E...
Shiv Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 Criminal Revision No. 758 o20. 06.2012. Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.Chile, learned GA for respondent/State. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. This is a revision preferred by petitioner Shiv Singh feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.04.12, delivered by 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 158/12 by which judgment dated 3.2.12 delivered by JMFC, Deori in Criminal Case No.402/09 has been confirmed whereby petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for three months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-under Section 324 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding of conviction of the petitioner but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in jail since 16.04.12. Counsel submits that petitioner has been punished R.I. for three mont...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »