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.
Kundan Lal Lakhera Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1 W.P.No.2787/2010 W.P.No.2787/2010 24/07/2012 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA for Respondent No.1. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. This is a case, where the employee was suspended and remained under suspension from 20 th of June, 1979 upto 31 st of July, 1988, till he was superannuated. It may be taken note of that the suspension of the employee was suspended because of his involvement in certain criminal case. However, after the retirement, petitioner was acquitted of all the charges in the criminal case and, therefore, he sought for all the consequential benefits arising out of his acquittal. The Municipal Council treated the period of suspension as leave but prima-facie, it is the case of the petitioner that no pay and allowance for the period of suspension has been granted. Except for making payment of `2,29,548/-, neither pay fixation is done, not post retiral dues are settled properly after acquittal ...
P.K.Singhai Vs. Cheif Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.4458/2007(s) P.K. Singhai and others .. .. Petitioners Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents For the Petitioners : Shri Anoop Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.: Ms. Sheetal Dubey, 1 to 4 Government Advocate For Respondents No.: Shri D.K. Dixit, 9, 22 & 24 Advocate W.P. No.400/2010(s) Harnam Singh Chouhan .. .. Petitioners Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents For the Petitioner : Shri Anoop Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.: Ms. Sheetal Dubey, 1 to 4 Government Advocate For Respondents No.: Shri D.K. Dixit, 5 Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ORDER (24.07.2012) In both the writ petitions common questions of law and fact arise, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this order. In W.P. No.4458/2007, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 30.12.2006 and 9.1.200...
Ashok Vamankar Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1 W.P No.5763/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5763/2010 PETITIONER : ASHOK VAMANKAR Vs. RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri B. P. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Shri V. P. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (24/07/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the police authorities to investigate into the incident of the death of petitioner's son Prateek Wamankar which occurred on 10.2.2010 and prosecute the private respondents in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's son was emotionally involved with one Susheela, daughter of Motiram Mavase, respondent no.5. It is alleged that as the petitioner belongs to a lower caste, therefore, the relationship between the petitioner's son and...
Rajkumar JaIn Vs. Santosh Choudhary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER AND REGISTERED AS SLP(CRI.) No.7833/12 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE APEX COURT ON 15.10.2012. MCrC No.12162/2011. 24.7.2012. Shri Satyendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manot Agrawal, Advocate for respondent. Arguments heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the proceedings pending as Cri. (Complaint) Case No.432/09 before Shri D.K.Khatik, JMFC, Banda Distt. Sagar. In that case, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act) has been taken against the petitioner upon a complaint made by the respondent. As per the averments made in the complaint, the cheque in question was dishonoured by the Bank with the remark that it had to be referred to the drawer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence under Section 138 of the Act would be made out as the cheque was not dishonoured because of...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Saleem
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
W.A.No.195 o24. 7.2012. Shri Vijay Pandey for the appellants. Shri Manot Chansoria for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dt.6.9.2010 in W.P.No.463/2010(S) by which a single Bench of this Court directed the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the directions issued in W.P.No.2757/2005(S) on 4.12.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the State Government has issued directions as contained in Annexure-A/1 dt.3.1.2011 and Annexure-A/2 dt.11.10.2010 by which the State Government has taken a decision in respect of the excess employees of the last election. It was submitted by Shri Chansoria that the appellant herein may be directed to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the aforesaid directions. To this Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection. At this stage, Shri Chansoria submitted that other similarly situated employee name...
Firm M/S Rameshwar Jagannath Prasad Gupta Vs. Gulshan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.14672 / 2011 Firm M/s. Rameshwar Jagannath Prasad Gupta & others Versus Gulshan & another ______________________________________________ Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. ______________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (24-07-2012) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Civil Judge Class-II, Betul, dated 25-7-2011, in Civil Suit No.39-A/2011, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement.2. Before I advert to the issues raised by the petitioners, it would be appropriate to take note of the fact that the petitioners are the tenants of the premises, in question, in respect of which the respondents have filed a suit for eviction on 12-10-1987 on the ground of bona fide requi...
Sayed Iftikhar Ali Rizvi Vs. the O/of the Hon'ble Distt.and Session Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9528. of 2006(S) Sayed Iftaikhar Ali Rizvi - V/s - Office of District & Sessions Judge, Katni and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Archana Nagaria, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti and Shri Vikram Johri, counsel For respondents 1 to 3. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, For respondent No.4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 24/07/2012 Challenging order-dated 24.3.2006 Annexure P/1 and order-dated 18.1.2006 Annexure P/3, passed by the then District and Sessions Judge, Katni imposing upon the petitioner a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, this writ petition has been filed. 2- Challenge to the aforesaid penalty order is made mainly on the ground that stoppage of in...
Govind Patel Vs. the High Court of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :12837. of 2008(S) Govind Prasad Patel - V/s - High Court of MP and Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 24/07/2012 Challenging the order-dated 26.2.2007 Annexure P/1 and order-dated 2.3.2007 Annexure P/2 passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner; and, the order-dated 4.3.2006 Annexure P/3 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the petitioner from service, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Petitioner was working as a deposition writer in the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Gairatganj, District Raisen. A complaint was made by one Pandit Abhay Raj, resident ...
Naade Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
FA No.780/11. 24.7.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri K.S.Jha, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.13680/09, appellants application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned decree as well as of I.A.No.10876/10, respondents application for vacating the interim order granted vide order dated 22.12.2009. It is noted that on earlier occasion in presence of both the parties, the following interim order was passed. In the meanwhile, on depositing 50% of the amount of mesne profits along with costs as directed by the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed against the appellants till next date of hearing, failing which this order shall come to an end without further reference to the Bench.Having heard the counsel perused the record along with the I.A.No.13680/09, in the available factual matrix of the case subject to depositing the 50% of th...
Kishan and ors. Vs. the State of Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2079/1996 Kishan & another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Masood Ali, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 24th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.7.1996 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S.T.No.361/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under sections 436, 506 (B) of IPC and each sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, each of them was to undergo for one month's rigorous imprisonment in addition.2. Prosecution's case, in sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »