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.
Vidya Sagar Pratmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit Surkhi Vs. the S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 W.P.No.10618/2012 Vidya Sagar Pratmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar versus State of M.P.& ORS.30.07.2012 Shri Gopi Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-Society has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notices dated 2.6.2012, Annexure P-1, issued by the SDO Sagar, District Sagar proposing to cancel the allotment of the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner under the provisions of the M.P.(Food Stuff) Public Distribution Scheme 1991 pursuant to and subsequent to coming into force of the M.P.Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, 2009).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P No.3487/2010 has upheld the validity of the Control Order, 2009. It is further stated that in an identical petition i.e.W.A No.52/2012, a Division Be...
Smt. Manjulata Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.10874/2012 Smt. Manjulata Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.07.2012 Heard Shri Prakash Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 13.4.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 under the provisions of Section 36 of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, seeking to disqualify the petitioner on her conviction in a criminal case from the post of Office Bearer of the Zila Panchayat, Rewa. It is observed that the petitioner has already filed a reply to the show cause notice before the concerned authority on 11.5.2012 and the matter is pending decision before the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa in Case No.22/Aavadan/11-12 and the petitioner has been given and shall have all and full opportunity to take up all the issues before the said authority in accordance with law. As the matter is already pending before the concerned authorit...
Javed Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.10743/2012 Javed Ansari versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.07.2012 Heard Shri Sharad Verma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is the Vice President of the Bhopal Divisional Cricket Association, has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to convene forthwith the Annual General Meeting of the Bhopal Divisional Cricket Association and to hold its election and for that purpose to take proper and effective steps towards conducting free and fair elections. It is stated that the Annual General Meeting of the Association has not been held since 2009 and, therefore, no elections have taken place inspite of the fact that the term of the body has expired in the year 2011 as a result of which the working and functioning of the Association is seriously effected and the future of the upcoming cricketers in Bhopal Division has become uncertain. It is, however, apparent from a perusal of the petition filed...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Parvez Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 R.P.No.514/2012 27.07.2012 Shri Pranay Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.S.Saini, Advocate for the non- applicants/claimants. It is stated that claimant Parvez Khan assailing the same award has filed another appeal i.e.M.A.No.3196/2008 which has been settled in Lok Adalat as per award dated 18 th October, 2008, however, while passing the order in M.A.No.3792/2008 by this Court the aforesaid fact could not be brought on record. On coming to knot about the settlement of the claim in Lok Adalat in the previous appeal, this review petition has been filed. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in filing this review petition is hereby condoned allowing I.A.No.8459/2012. The review petition is also allowed. Let M.A.No.3792/2008 be restored to its file and be listed for further orders on 3rd August, 2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ap 2 3...
Ex.Subedar D.N.Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10366 / 2012 (Ex. Subedar D.N.Tiwari ..v...State of M.P.& others.) 27-07-2012 Heard Shri R.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 8.5.2011 by which the petitioner's application seeking ad-interim stay has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No.532/B-121/11-12 which is an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the competent authority under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act. From a perusal of the order dated 8.5.2011 it is apparent that the Commissioner has only rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking ad-interim relief and has thereafter summoned the record of the court below which have yet to be perused by the Court. As it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of the application for stay has rendered the appeal to an exercise in futility, therefor...
Akhlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1596/2009 Akhlesh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.8.2009 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.67/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 392 of IPC and sentenced for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo for 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 25.5.2008, Subodh Kumar Jain (P.W.4) along with his wife Savita Jain (P.W.6) a...
Narad Mallah Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 Narad Mallah versus State of M.P.& others W.P.No.11156/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondents/ State. Petitioner is working in the Police Department as a Constable and has been transferred from Sagar to Tikamgarh vide order Annexure-P1 dated 14.7.2012. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and by pointing out that the seniority of the post in question, in which the petitioner is working, is maintained district wise, therefore, the transfer is illegal. That apart, it is argued that under M.P.Police Regulation, Superintendent of Police is given the power to transfer the persons like Inspectors or subordinates and as the Inspector General of Police is not authorized to transfer the petitioner, transfer by an unauthorized officer is illegal. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel points out that petitioner is only a Constab...
K.P. Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11295/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Keeping in view the fact that between 15.6.2010 to 12.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred for more than three occasions and in the present place, he has not completed his tenure posting, operation of the order Annexure-P1 dated 12.7.2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing and petitioner be permitted to work at his present place of posting. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
Smt. Neelam Chopra Vs. Kishore Kumar Raikwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
S.A.No.274 o27. 07.2012 Shri L.C.Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by two courts below decreeing the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000.00 along with interest in favour of plaintiff/respondent. Plaintiff filed a suit stating the fact that the defendant has taken Rs.50,000/- from him which was deposited in the bank account of plaintiff bearing No.4491000022586 on 8.6.2007. After making demand on several occasion the said amount was not returned, however notice was served on the defendant. Despite service of notice the amount was not paid, however, the suit seeking recovery along with the interest was filed. The defendant by filing the written statement has denied the plaint allegations averred that the plaintiff has taken loan from the defendant at several occasions to the tune of Rs.58,000/- for the marri...
Santosh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 Santosh Sharma versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11140/2012 27/07/2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondents/ State. Petitioner is working as a Water Pump Driver in Nagar Panchayat Vijayraghawgarh. By the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred to Sihora District-Jabalpur and in the writ petition, it is stated that the distance between the two places are 130 km. The aforesaid statement seems to be totally incorrect, the distance between the two places should be between 60 to 70 km and not more than that. Be it as it may be, on the aforesaid ground, interference is not called for. challenge is also made on the grounds of education of the petitioner's children, petitioner being a Class-IV employee and his parents being senior citizen, and also on the ground of seniority being maintained district wise. On the aforesaid grounds, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible a...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »