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.
Phoolchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.10059 / 2012 (Phoolchand ..Vs.State of MP & otheRs.30-07-2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent/authorities are not disbursing the amount due to the petitioner pursuant to the Faloudhyan/Horticulture activities undertaken by the petitioner under the Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna. It is submitted that the petitioner has already filed representations before the Collector, Tikamgarh, on 3-4-2012 and 29-5-2012 claiming the said amount but no decision has been taken till date. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents submits that the aforesaid representations filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner f...
Lokesh Nayak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11221/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Constable' in Distt. Sagar. He has been transferred to District Chhatarpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that transfer of the petitioner will adversely affect his seniority and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. In view of the law laid down in the case of Awadesh Kumar Shrivastava and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2012 (2) M.P.H.T.277 and by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhaniram Ahirwar and another versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1995 M.P.L.J.545 , no case is made out for interference into the matter. However, as petitioner has submitted the representation raising various other grounds personal in nature, respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid, petition stands dispos...
Devendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1408/12 30.7.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Adv.for applicants. Shri Pushpendra Singh,P.L.for respondent /State. With the consent of learned counsel of the parties heard finally. Applicants Devendra and Sunil have been convicted u/s 34(2) of M.P.Excise Act and sentenced to R.I.for 3 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of fine further R.I.for six months vide judgment and finding dated 16.7.2012 in Criminal Case no.4492/06 by CJ.M.Damoh; in Cri. appeal No.100/12 vide judgment dated 18.7.12 of Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge Damoh has dismissed the application for bail in the appeal hence this revision petition for grant of bail to applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants filed criminal appeal before Sessions Judge Damoh who vide order dated 18.7.2012 rejected the application for suspension of sentence, however, the appeal is still pending. Applicant is already in jail since 16.7.2012. In the aforesaid circumstances this revision is allowed. It is direc...
Natthu Shivankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Nathu Shivankar versus State W.P.No.11131/2012 30/7/2012: Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School Sarad, Betul and by the impugned order dated 12.7.2012 he has been transferred to another School in the same District of Betul in Block Prabhat Pattan. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that both petitioner and his wife are working in the same place and if his wife is not transferred, tranfer policy is violated. Merely because transfer of the petitioner is in violation of transfer policy, interference into the matter is not called for in view of law laid down in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and otheRs.I.L.R.(2007) M.P.1329 . Accordingly granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this writ petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Prashant Farkya Vs. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.10442/12 (s) 30/07/12 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Challenging the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 19/04/12 and a departmental enquiry initiated, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The charge-sheet in question has been issued by respondent No.2 the District and Sessions Judge, Neemuch and challenge to the order of constituting a departmental enquiry is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has made various complaints against a Presiding Officer and the charge-sheet has been issued due to malafide intention. Inter alia contending that the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet are not correct, the A.C.R. written by respondent No.2 at the instance of Presiding Officer is nothing but is on malafide intention, challenge is made to the charge-sheet mainly on the ground that it is tainted with malafides. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the all...
Manoj Kumr JaIn @ Mallelal JaIn Vs. Jhallelal Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.499 o30. 7.2012 Shri R.Mathai, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sushil Agarwal, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2-a,b,c,d and 4,5 and 7 although served. Shri Anurag Tiwari counsel for respondent No.3. Service report of the notice of respondent No.6 and 8 appears to be awaited. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Dy.GA for respondent No.9. Let the service report of the notice issued to respondent No.6 and 8 be requisitioned through reminder within 15 days. Case is also listed for consideration of IA No.6812/12 appellants application under Order 40 rule 1 of the CPC for appointment of the receiver with respect of the disputed property. Counsel of respondent No.1 submits that he has filed the reply of the same today in the Registry. On the other hand, appellants counsel seeks for and is granted 15 days time to go through the reply before making any submission on the IA. Let this matter be listed after 15 days for consideration of the aforesaid IA. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
R.L.Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :11799. of 2009(S) R.L.Sharma - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.K.Dixit, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. None for private respondents 4 to 24. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 30/07/2012 Challenging the order-dated 28.10.2009 Annexure P/7, with regard to fixation of seniority of the petitioner and further claiming a right to be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest after correction of the seniority, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Petitioner is a Forest Ranger and has been selected on the basis of the selection process that was held through the MP Public Service Commission. It is the case of the petition...
Ram Sahay Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Ram Sahay Vishwakarma.versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11355/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, after his reversion is presently working as a Constable and has been transferred from Tikamgarh District to Sagar District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioners wife has undergone some operation and treatment and, therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. On such grounds, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. 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...
Gudda @ Hari Shankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1351/2012 30.07.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate, for applicants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, G.A.for State. Records of the courts below were called on 23.7.2012 but not received. Heard on I.A.No.15019/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicants . Applicants have been convicted u/s452 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.667/07 by J.M.F.C Rehali Dist Sagar; in Cri. appeal No.106/12 vide judgment dated 12.7.12 of Addl. Sessions Judge Rehali Dist. Sagar has partly allowed the appeal by reducing sentence of six months . 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 Gudda @ Hari Shankar, Halke Bhai @ Ga...
Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11500 / 2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain & another versus State of MP & ors.) 30-07-2012 Heard Shri Arpan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who are both majors and have entered into wedlock, have filed this petition alleging that the respondents No.4, 5 and 6 are threatening them with life and liberty on account of inter-religion marriage. It is submitted that the in spite of a specific complaint (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioners before the police authorities no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till date. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition be disposed of of with appropriate directions to the concerned authorities. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Katni to look into the matter and take all necessary steps expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the aforesaid re...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »