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.
Sahara Matasya Udyog Sahkari Samiti Ltd Vs. Navmandal Matasyaudyog Sah ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 R.P.No.525/2012 25/07/2012 Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Neelesh Jain, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. Seeking review/ recall of an order passed by this Court on 11.4.2012 in W.P.No.5035/2012 (Navmandal Matsyuddhyog Sahakari Samiti versus State of M.P & others).this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is clear that W.P.No.5035/2012 was filed by the petitioner in the said case namely Navmandal Matsyuddhyog Sahakari Samiti making various allegations. It was found by this Court that in the said case, as an appeal filed by the said petitioner is pending before the Commissioner Jabalpur, no interference is called for, instead, the Commissioner Jabalpur Division or the appellate authority was directed to decide the revision within a reasonable time. Now, it is pointed out by the applicant M/s Sahara Matsyuddhyog Sahakari Samiti, who was Respondent No.6 in the original writ petition ...
Shivcharan and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 Cr. A. No.220/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.220/1997 Shivcharan and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri D.N. Shukla, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 25th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.1997 passed by the 8 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.742/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences as under:- Section Act Sentence Fine amount Sentence in default of payment of fine 148 I.P.C. One year R.I. Rs.1,000/- Two month...
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Manak Chand (Since Deceased) Now by Lrs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.436/2012 25.7.2012 Shri S.Sunder, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.8 to 10. I.A.No.7071/12 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. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2, 3 & 9 by Shri Pandey, Dy.AG. I.A.No.4895/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish security for the remaining amount as is requir...
Ramsingh Patel Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housingh Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.168/2010 25/07/2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are employees of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and by the impugned order, they have been transferred to the establishment of the Gram Panchayat. Various other employees who were working in the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and whose services were transferred to the Gram Panchayat have approached this Court and similar petitions transferring the employees from the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board to the Gram Panchayat have been allowed by this Court and the impugned orders quashed in W.P.No.165/2010 on the ground that transfer from one authority to another without consent is illegal. This is a case where petitioners are transferred from the M.P.Housing Board to the Gram Panchayat. From the order passed by this Court on 5.5.2011 in W.P.No.165/2010 (Tulsiram Patel versus Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and others).it is clear that the employees of the Housing Board, which is a statutory autonomous...
Rajkumar Patel Vs. Smt. Sushma Swaraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 E.P.No.43/2009 25.7.2012 Shri Manot Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa and Shri M.S.Bhatti, Counsel for respondent. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for Election Commission of India. This case is fixed for hearing on 27.7.2012. As this Bench is not available on 27.7.2012, the case has been taken up in Chamber to change the date of hearing. Learned counsel for parties have no objection if the case is fixed for 31.8.2012. In view of aforesaid consensus, the case is fixed for hearing on 31.8.2012. The case be listed at 10.30 A.M.on the aforesaid date. I.A.No.24/2012 It was submitted by Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel for Election Commission of India that on 22.6.2012, I.A.No.10/2012 seeking permission to open the strong room and physical verification of the EVMs in the presence of representatives of the parties was allowed, but it was in respect of Constituency No.18 Vidisha for the machines lying at Raisen. So far as machines which are lying at Vidisha, this application has be...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mus Mamta Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 R.P.No.493/2012 25.07.2012 Mrs.M.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Seeking correction in the order dated 13.12.2011 passed in M.A.No.4946/2007 this review petition has been filed. It is the grievance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Insurance Company that in the aforesaid order in paragraph 3 figure Rs.1,32,000/- has been wrongly typed while it should have been Rs.1,32,650/-. Similarly in paragraphs 7 and 8 the figure of enhanced amount of compensation has been wrongly been typed as Rs.3,52,000/- while it should have been Rs.3,51,350/-. Considering the aforesaid, it is ordered that in the order dated 13.12.2011 passed in M.A.No.4996/2007 in para 3 in place of figure Rs.1,32,200/-, it be read as Rs.1,32,650/- and similarly in paragraphs 7 and 8 in place of the figure of enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,52,000/-, it be read as Rs.3,51,350/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one month's time from today to pay enhanced amount along with interes...
Balbeer Tomar Vs. Smt.Sushma Swaraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 E.P.No.50/2009 25.7.2012 Shri Manot Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa and Shri M.S.Bhatti, Counsel for respondent. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for Election Commission of India. I.A.No.11/2012 for permission to open the strong room & physical verification of the EVMs in presence of representatives of the parties In view of the order passed today in Election Petition no.43/2009, no separate order is required in this petition, as this petition relates to the same constituency for which E.P.No.43/2009 is filed. I.A.No.11/2012 filed on behalf of Election Commission of India is accordingly disposed of finally. Be listed alongwith E.P.No.43/2009 for analogous hearing. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge C....
Lakhnlal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.2727/2010 Lakhanlal Yadav Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2629/2010 Kailash Shriram Kewat Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2642/2010 Sandeep Tiwari Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2648/2010 Kailash Chandra Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2651/2010 Kailash Tiwari Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2725/2010 Suresh Kumar Kewat Vs State of M.P.and another. Writ Petition No.2728/2010 Rajaram Yadav Vs State of M.P.and another. 2 Writ Petition No.4795/2011 Ajabrao Vs State of M.P.and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri R.K.Pancholi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. ORDER (25.7.2012) 1: This order will govern the disposal of W.P.No.2629/2010, W.P.No.2642/2010, W.P.No.2648/2010, W.P.No.2651/2010, W.P.No.2725/201...
M/S Shumbhanjali Construction Th:its Partner Govind Chandra Sinha Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10091/12 W.P.No.10095/12 W.P.No.10097/12 W.P.No.10098/12 25.7.2012 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondent No.1 Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.2. As controveRs.involved in these petitions- W.P.No.10091/12- M/s Unity Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10095/12-M/s Shubhanjali Constructions versus versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10097/12-M/s S & S Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation LTD.and W.P.No.10098/12- Arbee Contractors Pvt.LTD.versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., is identical and all the petitioners have received a notice from the respondent No.2 in respect of payment of service tax towards contract work performed by the petitioners with respondent No.1, all these cases are being decided by a common order. This order shall be applicable in all the petitions as far as it is applicable. Fact...
Hakamlal Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.9996/12 (s) 25/07/12 Shri Manish Billore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the order dated 6/09/89 denying the benefit of enrollment as a 'Home Guard' , petitioner has filed this writ petition and it is stated that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on 27/11/11 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Pointing out that under identical circumstances in the case of one Rakesh Kumar Rajput versus District Commandant, Home Guard and another in W.P.No.17334/06 (s).certain orders have been passed by this Court, benefit is claimed by the petitioner at par with that of Rakesh Kumar Rajput. From the records, it is seen that the impugned action is taken against the petitioner on 6/09/89. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted the representation vide Annexure P-3 on 7/05/2000. However, the representation is not shown to have been submitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »