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.
Bihari Lal (D) Lrs. Smt. Sushila Yadav Vs. Smt. Sudha Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No. 7533/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.7533/2011) Biharilal and others Vs. Sudha Yadav and others PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri R.B. Dubey, Advocate Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3 Shri Sushil Mishra, Advocate O R D E R (19/6/2012) PER SANJAY YADAV, J Order dated 15.3.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class II in MJC No. 1/2011 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 has been rejected. 2. The suit in question was filed by the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and possession of the property bearing NB No. 27 Plot No. 37/3 and 39/1. 3. The suit was compromised and an order and decree on 8.9.2009 was passed in the following term: 1 oknhx.k izfroknh dz...
The State of M.P. Vs. Delan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.130/1997 The State of M.P. Vs. Delan Singh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant/State : Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer For the respondent : Shri R. P. Singh, Advocate. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 19th day of June, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.7.1996, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No.1371/1993, by which the respondent was acquitted from the charge for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C.2. The prosecution story in short is that, on 21.3.1993 at about 4.50 p.m the complainant Pera Bai (P.W.1) was coming back from the market to her house situated at Village Sarsala. Near...
Heera Lal Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P.No. 8583 / 2012 ( Heeralal Prajapati..v. ..State of M.P. & others ) 19-06-2012 Heard Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 1-6-2012 by which his application for stay of the order passed by the Collector, Shahdol denotifying him as Panchayat Secretary has been rejected by the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol in Case No. 255/Appeal/2011-12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner had a good prima facie case warranting grant of interim order. It is further submitted that as a result of the rejection of the petitioner's application for stay the petitioner would be denotified practically rendering the appeal filed by him, fruitless. Looking to the fact that the appellate authority has examined the matter and has rejected the application for st...
B.N.P.Jaiswal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.14619/2003 (O.A.No.341/2000) Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal Vs The State of M.P. and others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J. Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (19.6.2012) This petition was filed in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as Original Application No.341/2000, which has come to this Court on transfer after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as Writ Petition. 2: The main grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which an order was passed imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect. Against such an order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but the same was not decided expeditiously. During the currency of the punishment, a DPC meeting was held and juniors to the petitioner were promoted on the post ...
Bhagirathi Vs. National Coal Fields Limited Singrouli
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No. 8645/12 (Bhagirathi Vs. National Coal Fields Ltd. and others) 19.06.2012 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he has a judgment and decree in his favour from the competent court to the effect that he is part owner of the land which has been acquired by the respondent/Company ignoring which the respondent/Company has issued notices to other owners for disbursement of compensation for the land acquired ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has filed representations before the authorities on 25.05.2012 which have been received by them on 26.05.12 and 31.05.2012 but no heed thereon has been paid by them till date. The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of the respondents/Company on the direction of this court submits that the representation of the petitioner shal...
Narendra Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No.14124/2007 19.6.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the intervenor. Shri Praveen Verma submits that he proposes to make certain amendments in the writ petition and for this he requires two weeks time. Prayer seems to be reasonable and is allowed. However, as the Interveners and various other persons have been appointed as Panchayat Karmi in accordance to the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and keeping in view the provisions of Section 91 read with Section 69 of the said Adhiniyam the interveners who have been appointed as Panchayat Karmi and thereafter notified as Panchayat Secretaries cannot be prevented from working on the post to which they have been appointed after following the statutory provisions. In view of the above the interim order passed earlier is clarified to the extent that such persons who have been appointed as Panchayat Karmi and Panchayat Secretaries under Section 91 read...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. Smt. Urvashi Marwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No. 6548/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.6548/2012) Rajesh Gupta Vs. Smt. Urvashi Marwaha and another PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocate Counsel for respondents Shri Siddharth Gulati, Advocate O R D E R (19/6/2012) PER SANJAY YADAV, J The respondent No. 1 is a proprietor of a Saw Mill, named and styled as Durga Trading Company situated over plot No. 1099/1100, Narsingh Ward, Madan Mahal, Village Amanpur, Jabalpur, Bandobast No. 5, Patwari Circle No. 28 Khasra No. 90/1. In the said premises three Saw Machines, of which one belong to respondent No. 1 and two belong to respondent No. 2 are being operated on the strength of the licence issued by the Forest Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) 1984 and the Rules made thereunder, viz., The ...
M/S Shree Krishna Timber Mart Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No.8529/2012 M/s Shree Krishna Timber Mart vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 19.06.2012 Heard Shri Ankur Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent no.2 is not processing the application filed by him for transfer of the lease plot in his name which he has purchased from one Shri Ravi Kumar Anand in respect of Plot No.13-A, Sector-A situated in Industrial Area Mandideep, Tehsil Goharganj District Raisen. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 without deciding the aforesaid application is threatening to demolish the construction made thereupon. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the respondent no.2 be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for transfer of lease plot expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to ...
Mukesh Shukla Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No. 3174/2012 19.6.2012 Ms. Premlata Lokhande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for respondent. With consent they are heard. Petitioner, a student of law in Katni Arts and Commerce College, by this petition seeks direction to the respondent to declare the result of the semester IV of Ll. B Main examination 201011 and to further command the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the third and fifth semester examination. In respect of the relief for declaration of result of fourth semester, the respondent on being noticed has categorically stated in the return that the same has been declared. The petitioner does not dispute this fact. As to the direction that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the third semester examinations, it is stated on behalf of respondent that the petitioner who was allowed to keep ATKT of the third semester on his no...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.A.No.164/2010 19.6.2012 Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for appellants. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondent no.1. Shri Sanjay K.Agarwal, counsel for respondent no.2. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for appellants submitted that in para 8 of the reply filed by the Jabalpur Development Authority, a specific stand was taken that the predecessor of appellants Late Ustad Gulam Mohd., was allotted plots bearing no.599 and 600 of 4000 sq.ft. each, but no particulars of this allotment has been given in the reply. It was further submitted by Shri Shroti that, if the respondent no.2 furnishes particulars of such allotment or lease deeds or sale deeds, appellants would be satisfied with the stand of the respondent. In reply to this, Shri Sanjay K.Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that as per the stand taken in para 8 of the reply, the plots must have been allotted, but whether it was in the name of Ustad Gulam Mohd., or some other at the instance of Ustad Gula...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »