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.
Shabbir Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11245/2012 27/07/2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, 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 allegations of mala-fides made and the details of harassment with regard to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner has made complaint against Respondent Nos.4 & 5 on which, complaint cases have been registered by the Lokayukt Organization and taking note of the various applications filed by the petitioner with regard to harassment, finding a prima- facie case for interference made out on the grounds of mala-fide in the order of transfer, operation of the impugned order Annexure-P1 dated 15.7.2012 shall remain stayed and petitioner permitted to work at his present place of posting. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2...
Rahul Mishra Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10643/2012 (Rahul Mishra and others versus Board of Secondary Education and otheRs.27.07.2012 Heard Shri R.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. This petition has been filed on behalf of as many as 15 petitioners claiming revaluation of their answer sheet in the subject of English and for that purpose a direction to the respondents to do so. From a perusal of the petition it is clear that the present petition has been filed on behalf of the 15 petitioneRs.details of whom have not been mentioned in the petition except for stating their roll numbeRs.It is also not clear as to how their cases are identical in nature and as to how and on what ground, an identical relief in respect of all of them, has been sought for. The petition also does not disclose as to how in the case of the petitioneRs.a general direction can be issued when their marks, differences and reason seeking revaluation have not been mentioned. Quite apart from above, in view of ...
Rajpal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 MCC No.825/2012 27.07.2012 Shri Sandeep Koshta, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.8807/2012 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 2.07.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant was on his leg before an another Bench and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.07.2012 passed in W.P No.8807/2012 is recalled ...
Shravan Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 MCC No.774/2012 27.07.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.8188/2012 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 20.06.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the arguing counsel was on his leg before an another Bench and his junior also could not attend to the case and as such the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.06.2012 passed in W.P No.8188/2012 is recalled and is directed to be restored to its original number. This ...
Premsing Rathore Vs. Kamtanath Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
FA No.551/12. 27.7.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. The service report of the notice issued to the respondents through registered post in compliance of the order dated 28.6.2012, is still awaited. Let the same be requisitioned through reminder within 15 days. Vide aforesaid order dated 28.6.2012, the direction to serve the notices on the respondents by Humdust, was also given. Pursuant to it, the notices were prepared and handed over the appellant through his counsel. An affidavit of the appellant regarding service of the Humdust notice dated 17.7.2012 has been filed. The copy of summons are also annexed with the same. As per averments of the affidavit, such notices were served on the respondents on dated 6.7.2012 and 8.7.2012, but it is apparent that the same do not bear any signatures of the respondents or the adult person of their family. So, in such premises, mere on the basis of affidavit it could not be assumed that the Humdust summons have been duly served ...
Praveen Pradhan Vs. Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
W.P.No.10325/2012 (s) 27.7.2012 : Shri S.K.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Claiming regularization in service on the ground that petitioner has been working in the respondents establishment since 21.12.87 vide Annexure P/1 this writ petition has been filed. Record indicates that petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wages employee vide Annexure P/1 dated 21.12.87, thereafter he continued to work when on 17.3.93 his services were brought to an end. Challenge to the said order before the Labour Court was allowed and Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the petitioner. Since then petitioner is working and it is the grievance of the petitioner is that till date his case for regularization has not been considered. Even though respondents by placing reliance on the order passed by the Labour Court tried to emphasize that all the dispute between the parties have been resolved, but I am unable to accept...
Smt. Rukmani Nirat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
27.07.2012. Shri K.D.Singh for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Considering the fact that against the order dismissing the petitioner from service, on the basis of a departmental inquiry conducted a right to appeal is available to the petitioner, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal is not proper. Considering the same, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith a memorandum of appeal before the competent authority within 30 days from today, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal in accordance to law within a further period of two months. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt.Meena Bai Gharu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 W.P.No.11182/2012 27/07/2012 Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a Class-IV employee working as a Safai Sanrakshak, Nagar Palika Parishad Itarsi. He has been transferred to Nagar Panchayat, Sohagpur about 80 kMs.away and transfer is challenged mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. Keeping in view the same it is thought appropriate to direct respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as it pertains to personal inconveniences of the petitioner. In view of the above, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the question of transfer of the petitioner in accordance with the policies and circulars and decide it by a speaking order. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner shall be permitted to work at the present place of posting at Itarsi. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajen...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Rajkumari Prajapati
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...
Baiya Chaudhari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25/2012 Babiya Chaudhri and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellants : Shri K.K. Kushwaha, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, District Satna in ST. No.08/2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 314 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, failing to deposit the fine three months additional rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecut...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »