Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Umesh @ Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.435/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2 to 4. I.A.No.7073/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 22.6.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be summoned. I.A.No.4894/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month...
Naresh Kamnani Vs. Smt. Malti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA 122/2011 30.7.2012 Shri Ajay Ojha, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.Mathai, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Praveen Sen, Advocate for respondent Nos.2&3. I.A.No.1577/2011 under Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing this appeal. Shri R.Mathai prays a week's time to file reply of I.A.No.1577/2011. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 8.8.2012. I.A.No.1576/2011 for staying execution of judgment and decree passed by the Court below. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No.1 has filed execution before the Trial Court and Trial Court has fixed the case for execution of the sale deed. He also submits that till pendency of this appeal, execution of judgment and decree passed by the Court below may be stayed. Shri R.Mathai also prays a week's time to file reply of I.A.No.1576/2011. Both interlocutory applications will be considered on next date of hearing It is directed that execution of judgment and decree passed by the Court below shall remain staye...
Dhaniram Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Dhaniram Dhurve versus State W.P.No.11424/2012 30/7/2012: Ku. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Junior Supply Officer, Jaisinhnagar, District Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to District Anooppur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has not completed the tenure posting and if the transfer is effected, petitioner's wife who is also working would have to be separated. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner and the fact that representation filed by the petitioner is still pending for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at an earlier date and till then status quo in the matter as is existing today shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, this pe...
Purshottam Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11369/12 30-07-2012. Shri Om Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division Jatara, District Tikamgarh. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 he has been transferred to Zila Panchayat Sagar, District Sagar. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that respondent no.5 is posted in place of the petitioner, he has managed his transfer , his representation is allowed and therefore, the transfer is illegal. That apart, it is stated that the petitioner has various personal inconveniences due to his ailment and therefore, the transfer is illegal. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner and keeping in view the laid down in the case of MRS.Shilpa Bose and others versus State of Bihar and otheRs.AIR 199.SC 532.no case is made out for interference into the matter. Apart from the above...
Sheikh Yakub and anr. Vs. Sheikh Sabbir and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.11 o30. 7.2012 Both the appellants are reportedly dead. Shri K.S.Jha, , counsel for the applicants of IA No.8102/12,8104/12,8108/12 and 8105/12 filed to take their names on record as legal representatives of appellant No.1 and 2. Shri R.P.Khare, counsel for respondents No.1,2 and 4. Respondent No.3 is reportedly dead. In the couRs.of the arguments regarding applicants of IA No.8102/12, 8104/12,8108/12 and 8105/12, on asking the applicants' counsel why the relationship of the present applicants with the deceased have not been stated in these IAs, on which, instead to argue further, he seeks for and is granted period of 15 days to file the appropriate application for amendment in such IAs or to file fresh application in this regard, failing which the aforesaid IAs shall stand dismissed automatically, pursuant to it, the appeal shall also be treated to be abated in toto. Subject to aforesaid compliance, office is directed to list this matter in the week commencing 27.8.2012 for cons...
Diwakar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11759/2012 30/7/2012 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner was working as Lecturer in the Tribal Welfare Department. He was granted time bound promotion in accordance to the scheme formulated by the State Government and after grant of time bound promotion he was granted regular promotion. However, after grant of regular promotion, when the benefit earlier granted is being withdrawn and when the pay is being revised by virtue of notice issued as contained in Annexure P/9, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The question involved in this writ petition with regard to withdrawal of benefit and withdrawal of the same after regular promotion and recovery of the amount has already been considered and decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of M.P.& Others vide order dated 19.7.2011. In view of the above respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the ...
The State of M.P. Vs. Garibdas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2079 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Garibdas & others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Shri I.K.Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.2.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shri S.K.Taram) Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No.116/1994 by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant Tulsa Bai (PW-1) had lodged a typed FIR on 5.11.1993 that her marriage took place with the respondent Ashok on 5.5.1992. All the respondents were harassing the...
Shri Premchand Dharmak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11141 / 2012 (Premchand Dharmak & another..Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 30-07-2012 Heard Shri Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to register a FiRs.Information Report against the respondents No.6 and 7 and investigate the matter. The Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 54.has categorically laid down that the remedy of petitioner in such circumstances is to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure as specified therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held by the Supreme Cour...
Manohar Singh Vs. N.K. Mathur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Writ Appeal No.546/2012 30.7.2012 Shri M.U.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 21.7.2011 passed in Contempt Petition No.793/2007, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Contempt Petition on the ground that no case for initiating the action for contempt on the grounds raised was made out and the application was dismissed with liberty to the applicants to ventilate their grievance in accordance with law before an appropriate forum. We have asked the learned counsel for appellants under what provision this appeal has been filed, but no satisfactory reply was given by the appellant. Section 2 of the aforesaid Act provides as under :- 2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one Judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or ord...
Upendra Kumar Urmaliya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Upendra Kumar Urmaliya versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11695 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Karsara, Janpad Panchayat Sohawal, District Satna, by the impugned order dated 12.7.2012 he has been transferred to another Panchayat 25 kms away and challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner is working on probation, his service have not been confirmed, therefore, he cannot be transferred. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that petitioner is only transferred from one Panchayat to another in the same district and as challenge to the transfer in question is not made on the ground of any statutory rules or regulations shown to be violated and nothing is brought to the notice of this Court which prohibits such a transfer. Accordingly, on the aforesaid ground inter...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »