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.
Sri Mohan Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11598/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Head Constable' and has been transferred from District Panna to District Tikamgarh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that the transfer is contrary to the provisions of G.O.P.No.69/95 Clause (Ga) which prohibits transfer of the petitioner Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a representation in this regard, the competent authority of the department shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo in the matter as is existing shall be maintained. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Ravindra Nath Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, School Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11714/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Deepak Okhade, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Senior Lecturer' in Govt. Education College, Bhopal. He has been transferred from Bhopal to his original department in the office of Commissioner, Public Instructions. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the order Annexure P-1 dated 13/07/12, it is seen that petitioner was on deputation in the Rajya Shiksha Kendra and not he has been transferred to his parent department in the office of Commissioner, Public Instructions at Bhopal. As the petitioner is only sent back to his parent department, no case is made out for interference on the grounds raised. The petition is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.10327/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri K.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Challenging the qualification prescribed by the respondents for appointment of 'Pariveeksha Adhikari' and 'Kalyan Adhikari' , petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner claims to be a holder of L.L.M. degree with Criminal Law as one of the subjects and it is stated that for appointment to the post in question, in the advertisement Annexure P-1, the minimum qualification prescribed is Post-Graduate degree in Sociology or Criminology. Inter alia contending that an L.L.M. degree holder like the petitioner with Criminal Law as one of the subject should be treated as equivalent to a P.G.Degree holder with Criminology as the syllabus for both the courses are the same, this petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the qualification pre...
Sarvesh Agarwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6709/2012 30.7.2012 Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate 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 22.2.2012 in connection with Crime No.15/2012 registered at P.S.Shahganj, District Sehore for the offence punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 459, 323 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The incident took place on the spur of the moment. A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party under sections 452, 147, 148, 294, 323, 506-II of the IPC. The injured persons have not stated the name of the applicanT. 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 and submitted that witness Komal stated the names of...
Guddu @ Javed Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6731/2012 30-07-2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. Heard on the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2012 registered under sections 4, 6, 9 of MP Krishi Upaj Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Section 4 and 6 of MP Gau Hatya Pratished Act, Section 9 and 11 of Pashu Krurta Adhiniyam and Section 66 (192) of MVC Act at police-station Bichhua, district Chhindwara (M.P.).Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, who have no criminal past alleged against them. He submitted that the applicants were not present at the spot on the date of incident. They have been enroped in the case on the basis of evidence of co-accused Baba Qureshi, who was transporting the cattle. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants. He further submits t...
Shyam Badan Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11374/2012 30-07-2012. Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is working as a Block Development Officer in Dhanoura, District Sidhi and by the impugned order dated 13-07-2012, the petitioner has been transferred to Khargoun. It is stated that the petitioner has joined at Sidhi only on 06-06-2011, therefore, this transfer within a short period of one year is unsustainable. Keeping in view the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed , status quo in the matter of transfer be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE 2...
Ram Shushil Mishra Vs. Kanti Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA 574/2009 30.7.2012 Shri Umesh Tripathi, Advocate for appellant. Shri S.P.Mishra, Advocate for respondent. Parties are not present. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that on earlier occasions, appellant had appeared but because of non-availability of the respondent, reconciliation could not be made. On raising such contention, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has also tried to contact the respondent but could not get any response from her. In view of the aforesaid, we direct Shri S.P.Mishra, Advocate to serve respondent a registered letter at her present place of residence. Be listed for hearing on 29.8.2012. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is ready to make payment of maintenance pendenti lite and he is possessing a draft of Rs.30,000/- payable in the name of respondent but because the respondent has closed her account in Allahabad Bank at Satna so he is unable to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the ...
General Manager (R and R) Narmad Hydroelectric Development Corporation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.268/2012 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.3232/12 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 6.3.2012, 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.3135/12 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...
Manohar Lal Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Manohar Lal Kewat versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10946 30. 7.2012: Shri D.K.Dixit with Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade-II in the office of District Treasury Jabalpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to the Office of District Treasury Katni and in his place respondent No.5 has been transferred. Interalia contending that respondent No.5 has been transferred to grant her benefit of adjustment and, therefore, transfer is illegal, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. That apart, pointing out various personal inconvenience challenge is made to the impugned order of transfer. Smt. Bohrey, learned counsel points out that respondent No.5 is a lady, she has been granted adjustment at her own request and her representation has been allowed looking to her difficulties and if the representation of resopndent No.5 is allowed, the ...
General Manager (R and R) Narmada Hydro-electrict Development Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.244/2012 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.3198/12 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 6.3.2012, 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.2812/12 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »