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.
Junior Engineer, Vs. Purna Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.1208/2011 27.07.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateria with Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Kamlesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents- decree holdeRs.Although this matter is listed for final hearing in the list of motion hearing cases but unless F.A.No.273/2012 filed against the impugned judgment by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the impugned judgment is matured for admission, this appeal could not be heard on merits for final disposal, therefore the hearing for final disposal of this appeal is hereby differed till passing the order of admission in F.A.No.273/2012. IA No.15483/11, appellants' application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC is also found pending in the matter. The same is taken for consideration. Appellants' counsel submits that in the available factual matrix and the evidence, it could not be assumed that due to fault of the organization the alleged death of Panjiyaji took place by electrocution and, therefore, the appellant...
Smt.Sushma Deb Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 Smt. Sushma Deb versus State W.P.No.11313/2012 27/7/2012: Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Female Health Worker in Public Health Centre, Paharikhera, Block Devendra Nagar, District Panna. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Devra Shahnagar in the same District of Panna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made on the ground that petitioner is shown to be transferred on her own request, whereas, she has not requested for transfer from the present place. Contending that petitioner has given option for her transfer to various place but ignoring her option she has been transferred to Devra Shahnagar. Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State points out that earlier also when petitioner was transferred, she challenged the same and the petition was disposed of directing reconsideration of petitioner's case. It is st...
Vishnu Dutt Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10324/2012 (V.D.Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.27.07.2012 Heard Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.4 is not complying with the order passed by the Information Commissioner dated 09.07.2010, wherein certain information has been directed to be supplied to the petitioner. Apparently the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authorities under the Right to Information Act itself. Apart from this, the petitioner can also approach the Collector, Rewa praying that the respondent No.4 had not complied with the order passed by the Information Commissioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to either take up the remedies available to him under the Act or to approach the Collector, Rewa for mitigation of his grievances. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner a...
Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Ombudsman,office of the Insurance Ombudsman (M. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10073 / 2012 (Ramesh Kumar Yadav .v.Ombudsman, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Bhopal & otheRs.27-07-2012 Heard Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming due and proper payment of insurance on the death of his wife under Policy No.355376448, issued by the respondent/LIC. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the petitioner's claim is pending decision before the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Bhopal as is evident from the letter filed by the petitioner dated 30-9-2011 filed by the petitioner along with the petition. It is stated that in spite of several reminders the claim of the petitioner has not been decided by the respondent/insurance company till date. In the circumstances, as the matter is pending decision before the respondent No.1, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner approaches the ...
Smt.Saraswati Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10709/2012 (Smt. Saraswati Verma versus State of MP and otheRs.27.07.2012 Heard Shri Jitesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2012 wherein the petitioner has requested the respondents to correctly record her name in the service record as Smt. Saraswati Verma in place of Smt. Saraswati Barman as subsequent to entering into service she has married to one Rameshwar Prasad Verma and consequently her surname has not become Verma instead of Barman It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previously the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the authority pursuant to which by order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shahdol, her request has already been allowed inspite of which the responde...
Mohan Agrawal Construction Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P. No. 7301/2012 27.7.2012 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks relief that Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 be declared as ultra vires to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That, a Full Bench of this Court in Shri Shankaranarayana Construction Co. v. State of M.P. and others [2008 (1) MPLJ 78]. has already upheld the vires of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 in the following terMs.24. In our considered opinion, therefore, the State Legislature was competent to make a law in respect of 'arbitration' in Entry 13 of the Concurrent List, even though the Arbitration Act, 1940 made by the Central Legislature was already in the same field because the 1983 Adhiniyam had been reserved for consideration and had received the assent of the Presid...
Municipal Council Nainpur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10769/2012 (Municipal Council, Nainpur..v...State of M.P.& otheRs.27-07-2012 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief sought in the present petition is a direction to the respondent/police authorities as well as administrative authorities of Nainpur, District Mandla to provide police protection and aid in execution of the orders passed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 320(3)(ii) of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar and identical petition (W.P.No.9593/2012) has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 2-7-2012 and in the circumstances the present petition be also disposed of in similar terMs.The learned Govt. Advocate submits that in case the petitioner r...
Surendra Singh Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11225/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Praveen Chourasiya , learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Secretary Gram Panchayat Padariya (Khurd) Janpad Panchayat Silwani District-Raisen. By the impugned order Annexure-P3 dated 3.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Tulsipar. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that after transferring the petitioner, two persons have been posted in place of the petitioner and the same is unsustainable. If the two persons have been posted in the place of the petitioner, it is for those persons to agitate the matter and as the petitioner is transferred to a place, where no other persons are posted, interference into the matter is not called for. The grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review of the aforesaid order of transfer is permissible. Finding no grounds for interference, granting lib...
Ramgarib Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.1208 / 2012 (Ramgarib Patel ..v...State of M.P.& others.) 27-07-2012 Heard Shri G.R.Saket, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to register a case under Section 306 of the I.P.C.against the respondent No.4. From a perusal of the petition it appears that the respondent No.4 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the I.P.C.before the trial Court. The alleged victim has subsequently committed suicide and in such circumstances the petitioner is seeking a direction to prosecute the respondent No.4 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C.From a perusal of the petition it is also clear that the petitioner has not filed any complaint etc.before the police authorities making the aforesaid allegations against the respondent No., 4 That apart, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakir...
Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority Th:its Chief Exe ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10433/2012 (Suresh Kumar Yadav versus J.D.A.) 27.07.2012 Heard Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, wherein he has requested for allotment of the vacant land adjacent to the land already allotted to him under the Scheme No.18 of the Jabalpur Development Authority. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the representation of the petitioner is already pending before the authority since long, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously in accordance wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »