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.
Mujahid Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6704/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rajnish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the Objector. Shri C.K.Mishra, 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 4/03/12 in connection with Crime No.114/12 registered at P.S.Betul, District Betul for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC and sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct allegation against the applicant in regard to committed murder of deceased Alok Mishra. The only allegation against the applicant is tht he was involved in the conspiracy of committing murder of deceased Alok. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays f...
General Manager ( R and R) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.533/2012 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 & 5. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2, 3 & 4. I.A.No.7083/12 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. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 & 5 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.5964/12 for stay The reference Court has enhanced awarded to Rs.3,86,105/- along with interest in favour of respondent no.1. The appellant has filed this application for staying exe...
Natthu Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8511/2012 30.7.2012 Shri Arubendra Singh, Advocate for applicants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.057/158/2012 registered at P.S.GRP, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself, marg was registered to the effect that deceased Mithun @ Bablu Singh committed suicide on railway track. The offence was registered after 1 years of the incident. Nothing has to be seized from the possession of the applicants. Co-accused Hari Shankar Pandey, Smt. Mithilesh Pandey and Smt. Pooja Pandey have been released on bail by trial Court. Another co-accused Vinay Gautam has...
Harish Mittal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
R.P.No.377/2012 30.7.2012 Petitioner present in person. Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This review petition is filed against an order dated 27.2.2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.1294/2011 by a Division Bench, by which Writ appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.9.2011 in W.P.No.2951/2009, was dismissed. This review has been sought mainly on the ground that the order passed by the Division Bench in writ petition is not correct as the Division Bench has not considered the contentions of the petitioner which were raised in the writ petition. The petitioner has placed reliance to various judgments of Apex Court filed along with the review petition. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, some factual position deserves to be stated. The petitioner had challenged the validity of Section 18 of Apprentice Act, 1961 and its Rule 10 of 1962 Rules, by filing a writ petition No.2951/2009. This writ petition was listed before the Division Bench on 19...
Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Rajesh Kumar Jain versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11390/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rajneesh Patel , learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner, a Multi Purpose Health Worker in the Public Health Engineering Department, has been transferred from Jatara District-Tikamgarh to Damoh, this writ petition is filed. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in the midst of the session, the petitioner is transferred contrary to various policies of the Government. Challenge is also made on the grounds of various inconveniences of the petitioner. The grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is called for. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 Rajesh Kumar Jain versus State of MP and othe...
Rewanand Bhatt Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11301/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as an 'Asstt. Grade-III' in the Govt. Higher Secondary School Daryapur, Distt. Burhanpur. By the impugned order dated 13/07/12 Annexure P-1, he has been transferred to Govt. Excellence School, Dhoolkot in the same district of Burhanpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner's wife is posted in the nearby place and if he is transferred, it would cause separation of husband and wife. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that on the grounds raised in this writ petition, judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is not permissible. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter instead liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Me...
J.S. Sengar Vs. Dr. Pukhraj Maru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Conc. No.1272/2011 J.S.Sengar Dr.Pukhraj Maru & another 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Shukla, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri A.K.Singh, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Soni, Counsel for the respondents. On 2.7.2012, we had heard this contempt petition alongwith Contempt Case No.335/2011. It appears that by mistake, orders were typed in wrong file. In place of this case, order was typed in Contempt Case No.335/2011 and the order in Contempt Case No.335/2011 was typed in this case. In view of aforesaid, we rectify the mistake in following manner:- Order dated 2.7.2012 in this matter reads thus:- Shri R.N.Shukla, Senior counsel assisted by Shri R.B.Tiwari, for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak for the respondents. It is submitted by Shri Pathak that further a month's time be allowed to the State to pass an order giving effect to the order passed by the Division Bench in the Case of Satish Shrivastava. Prayer is opposed by Shri Shukla,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, w...
Mukesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Mukesh versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10948 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Training Officer, I.T.I, Betul and by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Seronj District Vidisha. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner came to Betul from Baihar, District Balaghat at his own expense after his representation was allowed on 15.6.2010 and not his transfer within a short period is unsustainable. Keeping in view the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it is for respondent to consider this grievance of petitioner and take a decision. In view of above it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed claim, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of petitioner by a speaking order and till the afo...
Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance notice. Inspite of repeated opportunities being granted to the State Government to inform this Court as to what action has been taken on the representation Annexure P-5, submitted by the petitioneRs.no reply is forthcoming from the respondents and till date no decision is communicated. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that respondent No.2 the Commissioner, Higher Education Department shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law by a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioners within a period of two months thereof. Till the matter is not decided by the State Government as directed hereinabove, petitioners shall be permitted to work on the post in question and status quo with regard to service conditions of the petitioneRs.as is existing today, shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, petitio...
Mahila Bahu Uddeshiy Sahkri Samiti Maryadit Killai Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 1 Writ Petition No.10190/2012 26.07.2012 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioner is apprehending action in respect of cancella- tion of its fair price shop because of order, annexure P/5 dated 21.12.2011 issued by the respondent no.2 by which it has been in- timated to all the Collectors of the State to take action in accord- ance with the directions issued by a Single Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.3487/2010 Sai Kripa Gramin Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar versus State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Single Bench of this Court on 17.5.2012 in W.P.No.7754/2012 has con- sidered the case and relying on a Division Bench judgment of Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.A.No.52/2012 Shaktipunj Anusuchit Jati Mahila Bahu-uddesiya Sahakari Sansthan Mary- adit Gram Panchayat Diadari Vikas Khand, Ashok Nagar, versus State of M.P.and otheRs.has disposed of the matter and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »