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.
Kailash Patni Vs. R.K. Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.1840/2012 (Kailsh Patel versus R.K.Jain) 29.06.2012 Heard Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.10.2011 passed in C.S.No.213-A/2011 and order dated 05.01.2012 passed in the review petition, wherein the court below has fixed the rent at Rs.6,000/- per month under Section 13 of M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the petitioner is paying rent of Rs.2600/- per month from 1999, and in the circumstances, the fixing of rent by the Court below at Rs.6,000/- be quashed. It is observed that this court on previous occasions had granted time to file the agreement between the parties, however it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is unable to produce the same as he has not been able to obtain the copy of the same. Be that as it may, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is appar...
Ramji Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.9021/2012 Ramji Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.06.2012 Heard Shri K.K.Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to take up proceedings available to him under the CrPC. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to him in law, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Smt. Bhagwati Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 R.P. No. 408 Of 2012 29.6.2012 Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. Heard. Review of order dated 19.4.2012 passed in W.P. No. 13937/2008 is being sought vide this petition. Writ Petition at the instance of respondent No. 1 was directed against the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby revision by present petitioner (respondent No. 8 in writ petition) against the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by Collector Panna was set aside and the order dated 3.2.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Panna upholding the appointment of the present petitioner as part time Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat Ranjourpura, District Panna was restored. As apparent from the order under review, the entire case was examined on the basis that the a...
Santosh Palod Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.8897/2012 Santosh Palod versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.06.2012 Heard Shri Swapnil Ganguly learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is for a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur to finalize the proceedings for removal of encroachment against respondent no.5 as a report to that effect has already been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Gadarwara before the said authority. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the matter shall be taken up by the authorities and processed in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before respondent nos.2 & 3 within two weeks, they shall take up the representat...
Ramkumar Singh Vs. Deonath Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Writ Petition No.5491 / 2012 (Ram Kumar Singh & another .Vs.Devnath Singh & ors.) 29-06-2012 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rakesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3-2-2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision Case No.532-three/2011 which had been filed against the order dated 18-3-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Case No.53/Revision/10-11, alleging that the respondent No.1, Devnath had filed an application for mutation without impleading all the legal representatives of the person who was the original owner of the property in dispute and in such circumstances the application for mutation deserves to be dismissed. From a perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue it is apparent that the respondent No.1 had in fact filed the application for correction of the revenue records in...
Ramesh Chand JaIn Vs. Smt. Indrawati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.8778/2012 29.6.2012 Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation refusing to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of the respondents, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application for compensation contending that Late Chhote Singh Gond was employed in the establishment of respondent No.4, respondent No.4 was executing an agreement entered into between him and the present petitioner and as the accident took place, the compensation is claimed for. Initially an ex-parte proceedings were held against the petitioner but the ex-parte proceedings have been set aside. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is the employer of the deceased Chhote Singh and as respondent No.4 has accepted this contention, in view of this admission, petitioner is not the employer as defined under ...
Mahila Bahu Uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bamohri Vs. the State of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.8541/2012 Mahila Bahu Uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.06.2012 Shri Amit Jain learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notices dated 24.5.2012, Annexure P-1, issued by the SDO Banda, District Sagar proposing to cancel the allotment of the fair price shop allotted to them under the provisions of the M.P.(Food Stuff) Public Distribution Scheme 1991 pursuant to and subsequent to coming into force of the M.P.Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, 2009).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P No.3487/2010 has upheld the validity of the Control Order, 2009. It is further stated that in an identical petition i.e.W.A No.52/2012, a Division Bench of this Court has held that shop...
Ravendra Dev Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.9266/2012 Ravendra Dev Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.06.2012 Heard Shri Atulanand Awasthy learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.5.2012 issued from the office of the Commissioner, Registrar Co.operative Societies, Rewa Division, Rewa, whereby he has directed the Joint Registrar, Co-operative and the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative to conduct election in accordance with the programme, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previously proceedings for conducting election of the Primary Marketing Co.operative Society, Singrauli was taken up, however on account of certain disputes, the election was stayed in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P No.8198/2007(PIL) which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner therein to raise a dispute under section...
Kaalbhairav Swa-sahaita Smooh Patehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.4755 / 2012 (Kalbhairav Swasahayata Samooh, Patehra.Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 29-06-2012 Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.appearing for the State/respondents. I.A.No.7056/2012 filed by the petitioner for amendment of the petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Necessary amendments be carried out in the petition during the couRs.of the day. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner, who has been given the contract for supplying midday meal in Gram Panchayat, Patehra, Janpad Panchayat, Rithi, District Katni, has been prevented from doing so by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on account of which the Chief Executive Officer, Rithi, while directing the Sarpanch to permit the petitioner to work, on the other hand requested the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Katni to make an alternative arrangement pursuant to which the Chief ...
Jagdish Prasad Shukla Vs. Prem Chandra Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.5993/2008 J.P.Shukla versus P.C.Gupta & ORS.26.06.2012 Shri S.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 10.03.2002 passed in MVC No.136/01 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed in the claim petition filed by the petitioner purportedly in the Lok Adalat. It is submitted that the petitioner did not ever give his consent for either listing the matter before the Lok Adalat or for accepting the proposal before the Lok Adalat. It is submitted that the order was infact passed behind the back of the petitioner without his instructions or knowledge, in the circumstances, the same be recalled. The petitioner has subm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »