Madhya Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments
G. R. Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :8460. of 2011 G.R. Parihar - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sidharth Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P. Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 31/07/2012 Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the service rendered by him in the Work Charged and Contingency establishment for a period of 5 years 11 months and 17 days is not being counted for grant of pensionary benefits, only on the ground that under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employee Pension Rules, 1979 to earn the pension under the said rules an employee is required to complete six years of service and as the petitioner's servi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri 1008 Shri Swami Harvanshacharya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.A.Nlo.229/2009 31.7.2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.for respondents. This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.551/2005 (Annexure A/1) by which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order passed by the State Government by which appellant herein was removed from the office of Mahant of Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa. It is also brought to our notice that in Civil Suit bearing No.87-A/2004 by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa, the appointment of the appellant as Mahant dated 13.9.1983 was examined by the Civil Court and it was found that the aforesaid order was illegal. It is also brought to our notice that against such judgment and decree, a FiRs.Appeal bearing No.638/2005 is pending before this Court. Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan College of Education Vs. Devi Ahilya University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P.No.15307/2010 31.7.2012 Counselforthepartiespresent. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separatelyinW.P.No.14932/2010JawaharlalNehruCollegev. BarkatullahUniversityandothersthispetitionisalsodisposed ofwiththefollowingdirections: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with WesternRegionalCommitteeandrespectiveexamining bodies,i.e.,Universities,shalltakeadecisionwithina periodofonemonthinrespectofadmissionsmadefor theacademic session 200809astowhether the same wasinconsonancewiththeRegulationsframedbythe NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the normslaiddownbytheNCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges were admittedstrictlyinaccordancewiththestipulationslaid downvideRegulationsframedbyNCTEandthePolicy oftheStateGovernment,ifany,and...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Das Jaiswal Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.A.No.592/2010 31.7.2012 Shri R.K.Samaiya, with Shri Shailendra Samaiya, counsel for appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the provisions as contained in Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition Companies Rules, 1963 were not complied with. No application was filed before the State Government. The acquisition was for a private company, so it was mandatory on the part of respondents to comply with Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. It was also submitted that section 41-A and section 44-B were not complied with. On raising such contention, Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy.G.A., is directed to file a supplementary affidavit as the aforesaid position deserves to be clarified by the State Government. In view of aforesaid, we direct that this case be listed for hearing on 11.9.2012. Till then, status-quo as on today, in respect of possession over the property, be maintained by th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.86/2012 Jagat Singh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J.L.Soni, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.11.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.39/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.1.2009, Ramshri Bai (P.W.8) had visited the house of her mother Jagrani (P.W.9)...
Tag this Judgment!Chhatar Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1459/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1459/1996 Chhatar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Passed on 31st day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.8.1996 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities, Act) Raisen in Special Case No.320/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Act') and s...
Tag this Judgment!Victoria College of Education Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P.No.4569/2012 31.7.2012 Counselforthepartiespresent. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separatelyinW.P.No.14932/2010JawaharlalNehruCollegev. BarkatullahUniversityandothersthispetitionisalsodisposed ofwiththefollowingdirections: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with WesternRegionalCommitteeandrespectiveexamining bodies,i.e.,Universities,shalltakeadecisionwithina periodofonemonthinrespectofadmissionsmadefor theacademic session 200809astowhether the same wasinconsonancewiththeRegulationsframedbythe NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the normslaiddownbytheNCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges were admittedstrictlyinaccordancewiththestipulationslaid downvideRegulationsframedbyNCTEandthePolicy oftheStateGovernment,ifany,andt...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ramragho Singh Vs. Mangleshwar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 F.A.No.716/12. 31.7.2012. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. On payment of P.F.along with requisites of registered post within seven days notice of the admission as well as IA No.7835/12, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for grant of stay , returnable by fixing a date within three weeks be issued to the respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let the record of the Trial Court be requisitioned before next hearing of this appeal. As an interim measure the disbursement of some of the pension to either of the parties is hereby stayed till next hearing of this appeal. The appellant's counsel is directed to submit the certified copy of this order in the office of Pension Authority within seven days enabling such authority to comply such direction.C.C. today. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k...
Tag this Judgment!Somnath Vs. Pradeen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
CivilRevisionNo.500of2010 31.07.2012: ShriAshokTiwari,Advocatefortheapplicants. ShriJaideepSirpurkar,Advocatefortherespondent. Challenging the order dated 31.07.2009, passed in Execution Case No.85A/1991, by Civil Judge ClassI, Pandhurnaandalsoorderdated24.09.2010,passedinMisc. Appeal No.4/2009, by FiRs. Additional District Judge, Chhindwararejectingtheobjectiontodismisstheexecution proceedingonthegroundoflimitation,thisrevisionhasbeen preferred. 2. Onperusaloftherecorditrevealsthatinacivilsuit filed by the applicant a compromise decree was passed betweentheparties.Thetermsofthecompromisedecreeare reproducedasunder: 1& oknhx.k iz f roknh ds fdjk;s n kj gS A 2.oknhx.k ds vkf/kiR; dh nq d ku dk fdjk;k iz k Irdj jlhn iz f roknh oknhx.k dks ns x k ml ij fdjk;k ugha ck;s x k A 3.nq d ku ds iq u % fuekZ . k fd;s tkus dh n'kk es s oknhx.k la ; q D r lgefr ls vuq e fr ns a x s vkS j ubZ nq d ku ikus dk vxz d z ; vf/kdkjh gks a x s A iz f roknh oknhx.k ds vkf/kiR; dh nq...
Tag this Judgment!Sadm College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P.No.18357/2010 31.7.2012 Counselforthepartiespresent. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separatelyinW.P.No.14932/2010JawaharlalNehruCollegev. BarkatullahUniversityandothersthispetitionisalsodisposed ofwiththefollowingdirections: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with WesternRegionalCommitteeandrespectiveexamining bodies,i.e.,Universities,shalltakeadecisionwithina periodofonemonthinrespectofadmissionsmadefor theacademic session 200809astowhether the same wasinconsonancewiththeRegulationsframedbythe NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the normslaiddownbytheNCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges were admittedstrictlyinaccordancewiththestipulationslaid downvideRegulationsframedbyNCTEandthePolicy oftheStateGovernment,ifany,and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »