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 (Randr) Vs. Manvendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.182/2012 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, 3 & 4. I.A.No.3128/12 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 5.3.2012, 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.2,3 & 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.I.A.No.2040/12 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 before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish securit...
Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1802/10 30.07.2012. Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for State. Learned PL appearing for State submitted a report of Addl.SP, Waidhan, District-Singrauli which is taken on record. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are younger brothers of husband of deceased. Counsel submits that both petitioners are the residents of distinct places and they do not reside at Singrauli. He submits that petitioner no.1 Pramod Kumar Pandey is residing at Delhi and petitioner no.2 Manot Kumar Pandey is residing at Andhra Pradesh which are too far places from Singrauli. He submits that petitioners do not have any connection or nexus with the death of deceased and alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC (in the alternative under Section 306 of IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for which petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and they have been charged by the trial Court in ST No.197/09 on 9....
Smt.Shobha Balmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 MCC No.1756/2008 30/7/2012: Ms.Jailaxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Tikamgarh for recall of an order passed by this Court on 28.6.2008 in W.P.No.15634/2007. The said writ petition was filed by one Smt. Shobha Balmik on 1.11.2007 and she claimed regularization in service. Keeping in view the aforesaid prayer made, this Court dispose of the said writ petition on 28.6.2008 directing the respondents to consider her case for regularization. not it is pointed out by the respondents in this application that much before filing of W.P.No.15634/2007 (s) a writ petition was filed before this Court on 7th October 2006 being W.P.No.14564/2006 (s) - Raj Bharti and 10 others versus State of M.P.and Municipal Council, Tikamgarh, praying the same relief for regularization and this petition was already disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 18.12.2008. It is pointed out that Smt. Shobha was petitioner No...
Dr. Harish Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner is working as a Professor (Sociology) in Government PG College, Satna. By the impugned order he has been transferred to Government College, Devtalab, District Rewa. Interalia contending that respondent No.3 has been granted posting by way of attachment and petitioner is transferred ignoring the fact that petitioners wife is also working in the same College, this writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that as the State Government has prohibited attachment of an officer without there being a post, the order impugned attaching respondent No.3 is unsustainable. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that respondent No.1, Secretary in the Department, may look into the matter and in case it is found that the attachment of respondent No.3 is contrary to the policy of the State Government, necessary orders in this regard be passed within a reasonable time. With th...
Shatrughan Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Shatrughan Pandey versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11668 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Binot Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Secretary (Panchayat Karmi) in Gram Panchayat Kyoti, Janpad Panchayat Gangev, Tehsil Sirmour, District Rewa, by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Devas in the same Janpad Panchayat in District Rewa. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that petitioner has joined on the post only after an order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.8004/2006(s) and on transferred place no vacancy exists. Learned counsel for the State Smt. Bohrey points out that petitioner is working in the same Gram Panchayat since 1995 and due to a complaint received against him, his services were dispensed with in the year 2006, thereafter appeal being filed before the Commissioner having being dismissed a writ petition was filed bef...
Smt.Kalavati Vs. Pariyojana Adhikari Ekikrat Mahila and Bal Vikas Pari ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Smt. Kalawati versus Project Officer and others W.P.No.10322/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rishi Kumar Dubey , learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 8.8.2011 Annexure-P2 passed by the Collector in Appeal. Records indicate that against the order passed by the Collector, an appeal as per scheme has been filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Commissioner Sagar Division-Sagar as is evident from Annexure-P20 and under such circumstances, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, the Additional Commissioner Sagar is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months. It is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with copy of memorandum of appeal and other documents, the Additional Commissioner Sagar shall decide the appeal as directed hereinabove. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Cert...
Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Pushpendra Dubey for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. 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 15.6.2012 in connection with Crime No.427/2012 registered at P.S.Ashtha, District Sehore for the offence punishable under section 304 of the IPC. As per prosecution, deceased was working under the applicant as lineman, he was repairing the electricity line and this fact was in the knowledge of the applicant and operator Santosh, despite that they flowed the electric current in the line, on which the deceased was working, consequently he died due to electrocution. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. At the most it would be a case of negligence. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail....
Lalji @ Kishorilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1283/2012 30.07.2012 Shri D. Pendharkar, Advocate, for applicants. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A.for State. Records of the courts below were called on 16.7.2012 but not received. Heard on I.A.No.14479/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicants . Applicants have been convicted u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced to R.I.for one year and fined of Rs.500/ each-vide judgment and finding dated 30.1.2012 in Criminal Case no.346/02 by J.M.F.C Amarpatan; in Cri. appeal No.270/09 vide judgment dated 4.7.12 of Second Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Camp Court Amarpatan Dist. Satna has partly allowed the appeal by reducing sentence of 3 months each. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has been deposited by applicants. 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 directed that if the accused/applicants Lalji @ Kishoril...
Suraj Prasad Sharma Vs. Shrawan Kumar Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.113/2005 30.7.2012 Shri P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent. In the couRs.of arguments on IA No.8343/12, an application for extension of time to deposit 50% of the impugned decree in compliance of the order dated 1.2.2010, in response of some query of the court, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA with liberty to file fresh application after depositing the sum within 15 days in compliance of the aforesaid earlier order for condoning the delay in depositing the same. Considering such prayer, the aforesaid IA No.8343/12 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, aforesaid. If the aforesaid any application is moved on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay, the same shall be considered in accordance with prescribed procedure. It is made clear that without depositing the sum no further application for extension of time shall be considered. Let this matter be listed for further orders in the week commencing 21.8.2012 for ...
B.P. Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
B.P.Shukla versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11641 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as an Asst. Grade-II in the Water Resource Department and is posted in Sub Division Satna, by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 he has been transferred to Sub Division Umariya, District Umariya. Challenge to the transfer is made merely on the ground that in the order petitioner is shown to have been transferred at his own expense. Petitioner has applied for information under Right To Information Act and vide Annexure R-3 petitioner has been informed that in the department no such request was made by the petitioner, not the office has recommended for any such transfer. Interlaia contending that contrary to the policy and without request of petitioner he has been transferred, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »