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.
T.P. Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 T.P.Tiwari versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11779/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA for the respondents/ State. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred contrary to the policy in as much as, petitioner is to retire on 30 th of May, 2013 and, therefore, transfer before the retirement is illegal. Shri B.P.Pandey, learnhed counsel submits that under the policy, transfer at the time of retirement is only prohibited of an employee, who is to retire very shortly and who has been transferred out of district, the policy contemplates that he should be posted near his home town. In the case of the petitioner, the district of posting is not changed, petitioner is transferred within the district, therefore, interference into the matter is not called for on the grounds urged. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere into the matter as the t...
Smt.Jasvant Kaur Vs. Smt.Jyoti Dulani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.58/2009 30.7.2012 Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Service report of notice of other respondents has already been dispensed with. The case is listed today for consideration of IA No.8396/12, an application on behalf of respondent no.1 for immediate hearing of this appeal on merits. On asking the appearing counsel of the respondents whether he is ready to argue the case right now, on which he fairly submits that he has not come prepared in that respect and prayed to fix the same on some early date. On the other hand, appearing counsel of the appellants submits that this matter will be argued by his colleague Shri A.P.Singh, who is not available to argue the case as he is busy in some other bench of this court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the office is directed to list this matter under the same head in the week commencing 21.8.2012. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Komal Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.4185/2012 30/07/2012 Shri O.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 27/11/2011 in connection with Crime No.284/11 registered at P.S.Bhalumuda, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against this applicant regarding committing murder of deceased Charku Baiga. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State submits that main eye witness Ku. Rupa has specifically stated that at the time of incident she was in the house of deceased Charku and this applicant was quarr...
Brijendra Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11751/12 (s) 30/07/12 Ku. Neelam Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as an 'Ayurveda Chikitsa Adhikari' and has been transferred from Khajuri Tal, Distt. Satna to Bamhani in Distt. Chhindwara. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 25 % and, therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. Keeping in view the physical disability of the petitioner and the fact that the transfer is not shown to be in violation of the statutory rules or regulation, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy of appeal available, this petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
WP 11897/2012 (PIL) 30.7.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Counsel with Shri H.Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Shri Siddharth Seth, Advocate for respondent No.6. Shri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate for respondent Nos.7&8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the changed circumstances and subsequent development, petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh duly constituted petition with changed relief in changed circumstances. Though prayer is opposed by the other side but considering fact of the case that this petition is at pre-admission stage, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty as prayed with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge amit...
Smt. Sumitra Ganjam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11663/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Lady Health Worker' , Sub Health Centre Handipani and has been transferred from Sub Health Centre Handipani to Community Health Centre, Kajli in the same district of Betul. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is a lady and is in the advance stage of pregnancy and, therefore, if at this stage, she is forced to go on transfer, it would cause great hardship to her. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is thought appropriate to direct the competent authority of the State Govt. to consider and decide the representation. Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, the competent authority of the department shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and till the aforesaid exercise is not complet...
Munendra Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Munendra Kumar Pandey.versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11300/2012 30/07/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as Secretary Gram Panchayat Geduraha Janpad Panchayat Jawa, District-Rewa. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to another Gram Panchayat i.e.Gram Panchayat Jawa. Inter-alia contending that the transfer is not warranted, it is contrary to the policy of the State Government, interference into the matter is called for. Intervener represented by Shri N.K.Tiwari submits that the petitioner has been posted in the present place more than 20 years back and as there are serious complaints against the petitioner and contending that the transfer of the petitioner and the intervener is on administrative consideration, learned counsel prays for interference into the matter. Having heard learned counsel fo...
Guddi Mahila Swa-sahayta Samuh Navnagar, Ward No.23, Singrauli Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.9853/2012 Guddi Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.07.2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondent no.3 in again issuing an advertisement for allotting contract for supply of mid-day meals in respect of school for which contracts have already been issued to the petitioner till March 2013 by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli in earlier proceedings taken up by it. It is submitted that in such circumstances the impugned tender notices be quashed alongwith the proceedings pursuant thereto and the petitioner be permitted to continue with the supply of mid-day meals. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the confusion and conflict has arisen on account of some change in the policy of the State Governm...
Jwala Mahila Swa-sahayta Samuh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.7587/2012 Jwala Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.07.2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondent no.3 in again issuing an advertisement for allotting contract for supply of mid-day meals in respect of school for which contracts have already been issued to the petitioner till March 2013 by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli in earlier proceedings taken up by it. It is submitted that in such circumstances the impugned tender notices be quashed alongwith the proceedings pursuant thereto and the petitioner be permitted to continue with the supply of mid-day meals. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the confusion and conflict has arisen on account of some change in the policy of the State Governm...
Babloo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1328/2009 Babloo and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Madan Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.4.2009 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.344/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under sections 394 of IPC and each sentenced for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo for 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 11.1.2008 at about 1.30 a.m. in the night, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »