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.
Bhupemdra Kaom Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1080/2012 30.07.2012 Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, G.A.for State. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the record. Petition seems to be arguable hence admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A.No.12552/12Also an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant . Applicant Bhupendra Jain has been convicted u/s279 and 304- A IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fined of Rs.500/ and R.I.for 18 months and fined of Rs.500/-vide judgment and finding dated 23.4.2012 in Criminal Case no.1321/09 by J.M.F.C Bijawar; in Cri. appeal No.17/12 vide judgment dated 14.6.12 of Addl. Sessions Judge Bijawar Dist.Chhatarpur has and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has been deposited by applicant. Looking to the nature of punishment and the nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed of at an early date I.A.not is allowed. It is dire...
Chottelal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Chottelal Patel.versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11357/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Challenging the order dated 13.7.2012, transferring the petitioner from Umaria Parikshetra Panagar to Khandari in the same district-Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is a Forest Guard and challenge is made mainly on the ground of ailment of petitioners wife. Challenge to the order of transfer is not made on the ground of any statutory rule or regulation being violated. Petitioner is only transferred from one place to another in the same district and on the grounds raised, as no case is made out for interference, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Vinod Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11423/2012(S) 30-07-2012. Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat,learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is working as a constable and is posted in Police Line Tikamgarh. By the impugned order he is transferred to district Sagar and therefore, the challenge is made mainly on the ground of frequent transfer. It is seen from the record that the ground of frequent transfer cannot be made because the petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting on on 03-05-12. If the transfer dated 03-05-12 is taken note of it would be seen that it is local posting order by the Superintendent of police posting the petitioner from one place station to another police station in the same district, therefore, it cannot be termed an order of transfer. The present transfer order is passed by the competent authority transferring the petitioner out of district and in doing so no statutory rules or regulations shown to be violated ...
Jagvandan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11707/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Principal' , Govt. High School Jogipur, Sankul Kendra Higher Secondary School No.1, Distt. Sidhi. By the impugned order dated 15/07/12, petitioner has been transferred to Govt. Girl's Higher Secondary School Churhut in the same district of Sidhi. As the transfer in question is not shown to be breach of any statutory rule or regulation not is transfer challenged on the grounds of malafides made out, merely because respondent No.4 is posted in place of the petitioner and the transfer order is only to grant accommodation to respondent No.4, no case is made out for interference into the matter. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Dr. Amitabh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri S.P.Mishra, counsel for the petitioneRs.Solitary relief which the petitioners seek is a direction to the respondents to consider their case at par with the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.3000/2012(S) decided on 29.2.2012. The said writ petition was decided in the following terMs. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition filed by them be disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner be permitted to continue as a Guest Lecturer till regular incumbent is appointed. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, within two weeks from the date of obtaining ...
Rajan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri O.P.Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 11.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.145/2012 registered at P.S.Nagod, District Satna for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution, more than 50 bulk liters of illicit liquor alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the consid...
Vinod Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.798/2012 30.07.2012 Shri U.K.Tripathi, Advocate, for applicants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, G.A.for State. Heard on admission. Perused the documents available on record. Petition seems to be arguable hence admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A.No.9111/12 an application for stay. Allegation against the applicants is that they instigated Ku. Preety Pandey to commit suicide and she committed suicide on 16.11.2011 at 6.00 p.m.At village Jamuna by pouring kerosene who died on 17.11.2011 at 1.40 p.m.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no specific allegation is there against the applicant no.1 and the allegation is against applicant no.2 is that she made allegation by using word Badchalan., to deceased. Only saying this word there is no ingredients of Sections 109 and 306 of IPC . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I.A.No.9111/12 is allowed and it is directed that till next date of hearing proceedings in S.T.No.25/2012 pending before Fith Additional Sessions...
indrapal Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Indrapal Chaudhary versus State W.P.No.11142/2012 30/7/2012: Shri S.D.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as District Sport Officer in the office of District Education Officer, Satna. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to District Umaria and in his place respondent No.4 a lady has been posted at Satna. Inter alia contending that respondent No.4 has been posted at Satna on her own request and therefore, transfer is illegal, petitioner has filed this writ petition. That apart, it is stated that respondent No.4 is only a officiating District Sports Officer and she cannot be potsted in place of petitioner who is holding the post substantively. As far as granting adjustment to respondent No.4 is concerned, it is seen that respondent No.4 is a lady and on certain personal consideration, she has submitted representation for her posting to Satna and competent authority has all...
Tupendra Kumar Sahare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Tupendra Kumar Sahare versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10649 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as a Hostel Superintendent in I.T.I.Jabalpur, by the impugned order petitioner has been transferred from Jabalpur to Sagar and challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground that petitioner is on probation, petitioner's services have not been regularized and, therefore, transfer is illegal in view of law laid down by a Full Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Tiwari versus M.P.Text Book Corporation, M.P.H.T.2010(21032. Accordingly, contending that petitioner is not regularized and, therefore, he cannot be transferred, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Tiwari (supra) will not apply in the present case. In the case of ...
Smt. Samiksha Meshram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Smt. Samiksha Meshram versus State W.P.No.11940/2012 30/7/2012: Ms.C.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy.Govt.Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Staff NuRs.and is posted in District Hospital, Balaghat from where by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 she has been transferred to Community Health Centre, Paraswada in the same district. Petitioner has challenged the transfer mainly on the ground that she has joined at the present place only in October 2009 and her transfer before tenure posting of three years is contrary to the transfer policy and therefore, transfer is illegal. That apart, it is stated hat certain proceedings for divorce is pending in the Court of Balaghat and if transfer is effected, it would adversely effect the petitioner in contesting the pending divorce case. Petitioner is only transferred from one hospital to another in the same district and on the grounds raised in the writ petition, no case is made out for interfering...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »