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.
Siddharth Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Siddharth Shrivastava versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11097 30. 7.2012: Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Patwari under quota reserved for physically handicapped person. In the certificate of disablement issued to petitioner vide Annexure P-2, the disability of petitioner shown to be 'Congenital Incordinated Speech' the certificate was issued in the year 2006 and not by the impugned action the Collector has directed for appearance of petitioner for medical examination before the Medical Board and find out the present status of disability of petitioner. Challenging the order of Collector directing the petitioner for medical examination, this writ petition is filed. Considering the fact that the Collector has only directed for medical examination of petitioner for finding out his current status of disability, no case is made out for interference on the gr...
Harihar Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Harihar Prasad Mishra versus State W.P.No.11611/2012 30/7/2012: Shri Arvind Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy.Govt.Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector in Tehsil Deosar, District Singrauli. By the impugned order dated 15.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Tehsil Chitrangi in the same district of Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has got two years to retire and therefore, transfer at the fag end of his career is unsustainable. As petitioner is only transferred from one place to another in the same District, the aforesaid ground to challenge the transfer is not available to the petitioner. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere on the grounds raised, this petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
General Manager (Randr) Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.519/2012 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 & 2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.3 to 5. I.A.No.7270/12 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 27.6.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. I.A.No.8026/2012 under section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is delay in filing this appeal. Considering the nature of appeal, short period of delay and to the fact that the respondents have no objection, if the delay in filing this appeal is condoned, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 is accepted by Shri Upadh...
Govind Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Govind Singh versus State of MP and another W.P.No.11604/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya , learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Head Master in Government Primary School SeMr.Lodhi District-Damoh. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Primary School Dhanetha Mal in the same district of Damoh. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to ailment of his wife. Challenge is not made on the grounds of statutory provisions being violated or any malafide made out from the material available on record. Finding no case made out for interference, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 Govind Singh versus State of MP and another...
Raj Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL 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 3.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.33/2012 registered at P.S.Sultanganj, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 366, 363, 376, 506 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no allegation against the applicant in regard to commission of rape. The only allegation against the applicant is that he helped the co-accused in abducting the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had gone with co-accused Dhaniram on her own accord. 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...
Gulchaman Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Gulchaman Khan versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11358 30. 7.2012: Shri Mukesh K Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Grade-III in the Fish Farmer Development Agency and has been transferred to the office of Assistant Director Fisheries Office at Old Polytechnic Compound, Satna. Petitioner challenge his transfer from Maihar to Satna merely on the ground that petitioner's transfer amounts to deputation and as his consent has not taken, the transfer is illegal. Respondents point out that both the establishment where the petitioner is working and where he is posted come under the same administrative control, namely the Director of Fisheries and in view of provisions of FR.110 and the law laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Rajaram s/o Sarju Prasad Pal versus State of M.P.& Others 2010(3) MPLJ 45 it is stated that the transfer is not illegal. Having heard learned counsel...
Rajendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Conc No.426 o30. 07.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Advocate for respondent No.2. As the respondent No.1 has already been served but no one is representing him, however it is directed to Smt. Dubey to seek instructions in the matter and file Vakalatnama as well as reply. Shri Dhagat, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that as per the order passed by this Court on 3.3.2005 in W.P.No.2474/2005 direction was issued to extend similar pay-scale and dearness allowance to the petitioner within six months which has been paid to the Government school teacheRs.On filing contempt petition, the appeal has been preferred by the State Government before the Apex Court wherein as per the order passed in SLP (Civil) No.19188/2008 dated 5.11.2009 it was directed that the State of Madhya Pradesh shall pay the teachers of the Private Government-aided schools at the rate of 50 per cent of the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission up to 31.3.2009. As per ...
Abhimanyu Dupargude Vs. Branch Manager Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1020/2012 30.07.2012 Shri V.P.Nema, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A.for State/respondent no2. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the record. Petition seems to be arguable hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A.No.11709/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant . Applicant has been convicted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fined of Rs.3,80,269.31/- vide judgment and finding dated 31.8.2010 in Criminal Case no.936/09 by J.M.F.C Hoshanhgabad; in Cri. appeal No.224/10 vide judgment dated 23.5.12 of Iind Addl. Sessions Judge Hoshangabad has and dismissed the appeal . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that some time be granted to deposit the fine amount in instalments. 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 ...
General Manager (Randr) Vs. Raj Narayan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.479/2012 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.7059/12 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.5395/12 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...
Rannu Devi Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri P.K.Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an ANM in Primary Health Centre Baikunthpur, District Rewa and has been transferred to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Sidhi. Interalia contending that the petitioner has been transferred due to political pressure of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the transfer is illegal, interference into the matter is sought for. In support of the contention of political interference, petitioner has tried to bring on record communication Annexures P/7 and P/8, to show that complaints were received against the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents particularly Annexures P/7 and P/8, it is seen that the complaints are of the year 2010 and 2011, and it cannot be said that the present transfer in the year 2012 is influenced by these complaints. Be it as it may be, as the grounds raised by the petitioner in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »