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.
M/S Kaipan Panmasala Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1 W.P.No.5915/12 M/s Kaipan Panmasala Pvt.LTD.Union of India & others 24.7.2012 Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vivek Kohli, Shri Nalin Talwar, Shri Abhishek Swaroop and Shri Ishan Mehta, Counsel for petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Counsel appears for respondent No.1-Union of India. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents No.2 to 4. Shri Greeshm Jain, Counsel appears for Food Safety and Standards Authority of India by filing an application IA No.8229/12 seeking intervention. I.A.No.8229/12 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has no objection if this application is allowed and the authority namely Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FDA Bhavan, Kotla Road, New Delhi is impleaded as respondent in the case. In view of aforesaid, I.A.No.8229/2012 is allowed. Aforesaid authority is directed to be impleaded as respondent No.5. Necessary amendment by correction in the cause title b...
Amarchand Upadhyay Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1 W.P.No.7550/12 Amarchand Upadhya & another Union of India & others 24.7.2012 Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vivek Kohli, Shri Nalin Talwar, Shri Abhishek Swaroop, Shri Ishan Mehta and Shri Shashank Shekhar, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Counsel appears for respondent No.1- Union of India. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents No.2 to 4. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for Union of India prays 3 weeks time to file reply. Prayer is opposed by the petitioners on the ground that on 21.6.2012, the Union of India was allowed one last opportunity to file reply, but inspite of this, reply has not been filed, so no further time be allowed to Union of India to file reply. However, considering the subject matter of petition and importance of the matter, we find it appropriate to allow one more last opportunity of 3 weeks to Union of India for filing reply. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of 3 weeks f...
Junior Engineer Vs. Kishanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR F.A.No.554/2006 Junior Engineer MPSEB and another. Vs. Kishanlal and another. For the Appellants : Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri Sanjay Jain, Advocate. JUDGMENT (ORAL) ( 24/ 07/2012 ) U.C. Maheshwari,J.The appellants/ defendants have directed this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Original Suit No.14-A/2005 decreeing the suit of the respondents filed for compensation/damages regarding death of their son Roshanlal on account of electrocution due to negligence of the appellants/department. Such suit has been decreed for the sum of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A from the date of filing the suit i.e 3.9.2005 so also the cost of the litigation.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the appellants contending that on ...
Prakash Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
23.07.2012. Shri N.S.Ruprah for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Balaghat and by order-dated 14.6.2012 Annexure P/1, his representation against the transfer is rejected and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Challenge to the order is made mainly on the ground that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered properly and it has been rejected without application of mind. It is pointed out that in the place where the petitioner has been transfer no posts are available and, therefore, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner the respondents have committed an error. Records indicate that vide order-dated 6.1.2012, petitioner who is an Additional SP was transferred from Balaghat to Baihar in the same District of Balaghat. Challenging the aforesaid order of transfer petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.901/2012(S) and vide order- date...
M.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Rajiv Jha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1....W.A.No.133 o23. 7.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vinot Mishra, Counsel for the respondents. I.A.8440/12 :application for converting cross appeal into writ appeal. By this application, appellants are making prayer for conversion of cross-objections filed by the respondents as cross appeal or to treat it as a separate appeal. From the perusal of the records, it appears that on 7.10.2006 cross-objections were filed in the matter and not the appellants are seeking permission to convert the aforesaid as cross appeal. In M.P.Uchha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,2004, there is no provision for filing cross appeal but the respondents can very well file a separate writ appeal. As the aforesaid cross objections remained pending since last near about 6 yeaRs.we find it appropriate to direct the office to register the aforesaid cross objections as a separate writ appeal, the appellants may move an appropriate application seeking condonation...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shri Kishor Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 1 Writ Appeal No.823/2012 23.07.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the appel- lant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 2.12.2011 in W.P.No.560/2009(S) by which a learned Single Judge of this Court decided the writ petitions by issuing following directions :- Keeping in view aforesaid this petition is allowed. Re- spondents are directed to make payment to the petition- ers at minimum of pay in prescribed scale for the post against which petitioners are working in accordance to order passed by Tribunal dated 15.12.2000 vide Annex- ure P/1 and grant arrears of pay to them from the date of reinstatement.This appeal is also barred by 175 days so the appellant has moved another application, I.A.No.8858/2012 seeking condona- tion of delay. Facts of the case are that the respondents were working as daily wager Peon and they were getting less than the minimum prescribed in the pay-scale so they had approached to the M.P.Administrative Tribunal claiming minimum of ...
Durga Mahila Swasahayata Samooh Padariya Th:smt. Prabha Pandey Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10323/2012 (Durga Mahila Swasahayata Samooh, Padariya versus State of MP and otheRs.23.07.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent No.5 on caveat. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted liberty to approach the competent authority by filing a complaint against the concerned Panchayat Coordinator and this petition be disposed of accordingly. In view of the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner without interfering in the impugned order the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the liberty as prayed for. However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, in case the petitioner files a complaint, the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or re...
Smt.Dasoda Bai Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10454/2012 Smt. Dasoda Bai Kushwaha versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Heard Shri Balkishan Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 the petitioner against respondent nos.6 to 9. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to take up proceedings available to her under the CrPC. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to her in law, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Smt. Jyoti Khemle Vs. Yogendra Khemle
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Conc. No.1006 o23. 7.2012. Ms.Sneh Mishra for the petitioner. This application is filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent alleging disobedience of order dt.11.11.2009 passed in F.A.No.755/2008 by which a Division Bench of this Court directed respondent not to perform second marriage without seeking prior permission of this Court. It was submitted by Ms.Mishra that the appellant could not get the knowledge of second marriage of the respondent, however, she could obtain a certificate (Annexure C-2) by which a child of respondent was born on 30.4.2009. It was submitted that the respondent has contacted second marriage with Surekha Khemle whose name is appearing in the certificate (Annexure C-2).From the perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that on 30.4.2009 Surekha Khemle gave birth to a male child whose husband's name is appearing as Yogendra Khamele. But, this Court on 11.11.2009 had issued the aforesaid injunction order and before this, the aforesaid child was ...
Poonaram Rathore Vs. Ramchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
M.Cr.C.No.1068/2011. 23.07.2012. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate for applicant-complainant. Heard on admission. This is an application, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. Corresponding judgment was passed on 28.10.2010 by Shri D.N.Singh, JMFC, Waraseoni Distt. Balaghat in Cri. Case No.1115/08. In that case, cognizance of the offence was taken against the respondents upon a complaint made by the applicant. The complaint contained allegations to the effect that on 10.10.07, in a meeting held in Shiva Mandir premises in Village Chandore, the respondents defamed him by making imputation that he had been practising witchcraft and thereby, (i) used to make the daughter of respondent no.1 sway to and fro while believing that she was being bitten by a snake. (ii) had caused death of respondent no.2s sister and had bewitched wife of respondent no.3. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »