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.
Manaji Mawasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8822/2012 (Manaji Mawasi & ors versus State of M.P.& ors.) 27.06.2012 Heard Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 16.06.2011 (Annexure P-1 to P-14) by which the lease (patta) granted to them under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in the year 2010 have been cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had been granted lease (patta) under the aforesaid Act in the year 2010 by treating them to be the persons who had encroached upon forest land prior to 2005, however, subsequently after re-enquiry the respondent authorities have cancelled the lease (patta) granted to the petitioners by the impugned orders dated 16.06.2011 (Annexure P-1 to P-14) on the ground that the petitioners were in fact not encroachers prior to 2...
Anjani Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar, Maryadit Chandla Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8741/2012 (Anjani Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Chandla versus State of MP and otheRs.27.06.2012 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that the respondent No.3 Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur be directed to consider and decide the election petition filed by the petitioner before him expeditiously, in accordance with law, in compliance of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur dated 29.03.2012 wherein he has directed the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur to decide the election petition within two months which period has already expired. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 is not deciding the election petition as a result of which petitioner's rights are seriously affected. Having heard the learned couns...
Prakashchand Bukhariya Vs. M/S Brijmohan and Sons Dealing Sale and Dis ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 W.P.No.8657/2012 Prakashchand Bukhariya versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.06.2012 Heard Shri K.N.Agrawal and Shri Saket Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 8.8.2011 and 10.4.2012 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 and Order 16 Rule 6 CPC. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the trial court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the applications and has also given the petitioner opportunity to file documents after obtaining them from the concerned office or under the Right to Information Act. In any case, non- production of documents can be taken up as an issue by the petitioner in the suit as well as in the subsequent appeal, if occasion arises or to claim adveRs.inference in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to inte...
A.L. Thakur Vs. the State of Mp
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (O.A.No.5178/2000) A.L.Thakur and otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.And Writ Petition No.16741/2003 (O.A.No.7551/2000) Pratap Singh Yadav and 13 otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (27.6.2012) 1: These two petitions were originally filed as Original Application before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal, which have come on transfer to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and have been registered as writ petition. Since a 2 common claim is made in both the writ petitions, common relief is claimed only on the basis of orders passed by the Tribunal in earlier petitions, which have been implemented by the State Government, these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The facts as have ...
Smt. Manjulata Singh Vs. the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.9276 / 2012 (Smt. Manjulata Singh versus The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, LTD.& otheRs.27-06-2012 Heard Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that though the petitioner has approached the Grievance Redressal Cell of the respondents in respect of the proceedings taken up by them through an advertisement for allotment of retail outlet on National Highway No.7 on the Bela-Amarpatan Road, and the matter is pending decision thereon, the authorities are proceeding further in the matter without looking into the documents filed by the petitioner to establish that the respondent No.3 is disqualified to apply and are ignoring the claim of the petitioner who has been placed on the top of the list of most eligible candidates. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to do so. In the circumstances and looking to the limited prayer made by...
The State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1698 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal & another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri D.K.Melani, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of June, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.12.1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No.43/1994 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa whereby the respondents were acquitted from all the charges. The respondents were convicted and sentenced for commission offence punishable under Sections 447, 325/34 of IPC by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa vide judgment dated 29.9.1994 in Criminal Case No.1060/1992.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 10.3.1992 at about 3...
Board of Secondary Education and Teacher Training Vs. the Regional Pro ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8438 / 2012 (Board of Secondary Education & another ..v ..The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & otheRs.27-06-2012 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that in spite of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4798/2002 the respondent/authorities have not decided the review application filed by the petitioner on 16-10-2002. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 had sought time to verify the status of the pending review application. On seeking instructions it is submitted that the record of the aforesaid review is not traceable in their office. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the review is not in the prescribed format. In the circumstances and in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction that ...
The Rashtriya Colliery Workdrs' Federation vs. the Chairman-Cum-Managi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.8894/2012 (The Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation versus Chairman cum Managing Director & ors.) 27.06.2012 Heard Shri L.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the respondent No.1 amalgamating the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed by the respondent No.1 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and inspite of several representations, no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till date. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the order of amalgamation has been passed by the management on 31.12.2003 on the basis of a decision taken on 22.08.03 by the aforesaid two unions i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.3 in exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel e...
Makhmal Khan and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1739 OF 200.Makhmal Khan & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of June, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11/10/2002 passed by the Second Sessions Judge, Sehore in ST No.136/2002, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced for ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for six months was directed.2. The present criminal appeal was decided by the Single...
Rajkumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
W.P.No.4115/2012 27.06.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 19.9.1997, the petitioner was appointed against a post of Driver by the order of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Deosar, but on daily wages as per the wages fixed by the Collector. He has continuously worked on the said post and the vacancy is still available. However, the claim of petitioner for regularisation is not considered though a representation was made on 16.12.2011. It is contended that the similar claim made by one Om Prakash Choubey was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.3167/2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2.11.2011, directing consideration of the claim of petitioner. It is submitted that in terms of the said decision, the respondents are liable to consider the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »