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.
Chhota Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.P.No.10574 / 2012 (Chhota..Vs...State of MP & otheRs.26-07-2012 Shri Manot Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already approached the police authorities by filing a representation dated 18-6-2012 (Annexure P-2) but the same has not been considered and decided by the authorities till date. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.6, Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, to consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable the said authority to do so, a copy of the order passed by this Court today be served upon him by the petitioner. With the afore...
Shyam Lal Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.2337/12(s) Shyamlal Choudhary .. .. Petitioner Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, No.1 & 2 Government Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.07.2012) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure P/12) as well as order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P/14) by which punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs.1,53,240/- has been imposed on the petitioner. In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned orders few facts need mention, which are stated infra2. The petitioner holds the substantive post of Executive Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department. The petitioner by an order dat...
Smt. Vimla Bai Vs. Shyamlal Sen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1 1 Writ Petition No.10457/2012 26.07.2012 Shri Rahul Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.This petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.2012 in M.J.C.No.2/2011 by 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Narsinghpur, by which an application filed by the respondents under Order XXII Rule 2 C.P.C.for substitution of legal heirs of plaintiff no.3 Bas- antlal and plaintiff no.4 Laxmi Prasad was partially allowed and the LRs of Laxmi Prasad were directed to be substituted. The court below allowed the application filed for substitu- tion of the legal heirs of Laxmi Prasad but rejected the application filed on behalf of Basant Kumar on the ground that Basant Kumar was not party (Basantlal was party).This order is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the ap- plication no date of death of Laxmi Prasad was shown without which the trial court erred in allowing the application. From the perusal of the record we find that these are the proceedings for res...
Smt.Nalini Roopa David Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.4916/05(s) Smt. Nalini Roopa David .. .. Petitioner Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate For the Respondents: Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.07.2012) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.6.2005 by which resignation submitted by her has been accepted with effect from 1.7.1991. In order to appreciate the petitioner;s challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.2. The petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse w.e.f. 16.4.1980. The petitioner while she was working as Staff Nurse in Civil Hospital, Katni, 2 submitted her resignation on 11.11.1991 to the Chief Medical and Health Officer on the ground that on account of domestic problem, she is unable to perform the ...
Kafeel Khan Vs. Nagar Palika Nigam Mudwara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.P.No.10501 / 2012 (Kafeel Khan & another ..Vs..Nagar Palika Nigam, Murwara & ors.) 26-07-2012 Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners appropriate hearing and not to demolish the petitioneRs.shops without adopting the procedure prescribed by law. From a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioners it is apparent that the petitioners have filed a writ petition before this Court which is registered as W.P.No.9036/2010 in which an interim order has been passed by this Court on 26-7-2010. Subsequently, the respondent Haji Ghulam Murtaza had filed W.P.No.6205/2012 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 20-4-2012 directing the appeal committee to decide the appeal filed by the respondent after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a period of three months form the date of receipt ...
Hifzur Rahman @ Chhote Minya Vs. the Commissioner Paryawas Bhawan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.P.No.10261/2012 (Hifzur Rahman alias Chhote Minya versus The Commissioner, State Information Commission and another) 26.07.2012 Heard Shri Prashant Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging non- compliance of the order passed by the respondent No.1, by respondent No.3 regarding orders passed in favour of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner in such circumstances is provided under the Act itself. Quite apart from the above, in case the respondent No.3 is not following the order passed by the competent authority the petitioner is required to approach the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, but he has not done so. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance wit...
Mustaq Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
W.A.No.10503 o26. 7.2012. Shri R.N.Dwivedi for the petitioner. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent to correct the revenue record and muted the land of petitioner which was illegally muted in the name of respondent No.7 and also acquired by the respondent No.5 & 6 in the interest of justice. 7.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent to take criminal action against the respondent No.7 in the interest of justice. 7.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call entire record. 7.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper on the basis of above mentioned facts and grounds. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 happens to be an influential person and has got recorded his name on KhaSr.No.612/2 area 94 decimal, while the aforesaid land is PWD land and respondent No.7 having no rig...
Chittaroopa Palit Vs. Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1....W.P.No.10007 o26. 7.2012 Shri Vivek Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. This revision is directed against an order dated 15.5.2012 by which the Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.237A/12 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaint which was filed in the Bombay Civil Court was directed to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC but the respondents before refiling of the plaint changed it substantially which is not permissible under the law and the trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint. It is further submitted that the suit was barred by limitation because it was not filed within the time period as it was filed before the Bombay Civil Court. On being asked whether if a plaint is returned under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C.and if any correction or amendments are made before its re-presentation, is there any provision for rejection of the plaint?. Petitioner could not point ou...
Ramcharan @ Bhajju Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1564/2011 Ramcharan @ Bhajju & others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 26th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 12.7.2011 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T.No.07/2007, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under section 304 (II) read with section 34 and section 323 read with section 34 (Two counts) of IPC and each sentenced for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 3 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, each ...
Kiran Kumar Ojha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1....W.P.No.11091 of 2012 Kiran Kumar Ojha State of M.P.& ORS.26.7.2012 Shri Anubhav Jain, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguli, Counsel for the respondents No.1,2 and 3 and also for Nagar Panchayat, Orcha. Shri B.P.Pandey, Counsel appearing by filing an application for intervention. This petition is directed against an order dated 14.7.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 by which petitioner who was posted as the Chief Municipal Officer, Orcha district Tikamgarh was transferred as Chief Municipal Officer, Shahpura district Jabalpur. The grounds which are shown in the petition are that the petitioner though earlier moved an application for his mutual transfer to Kareli district Narsinghpur with the concurrence of one Darshan Singh Ghosh who was posted as the Chief Municipal Officer, Kareli but inspite of transferred to Kareli, he has been transferred to Shahpura. It was submitted that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and the date of superannuation is 31.12.2012 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »