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.
Akanksha Kurwati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10333/2012 Akansha Kurwati versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Heard Shri Surendra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent police authorities to hear the petitioner before taking any action on the complaint filed by her mother, respondent no.4. It is alleged that the petitioner has entered into wedlock with one Piyush Kumar Sharma and is not residing in village Loona, District Varodara, Gujarat. It is stated that the petitioner's mother, respondent no.4, has filed a report against the petitioner and her husband at Police Station Kotwali, Ranjhi, District Jabalpur pursuant to which the police is in search of the petitioner and in such circumstances a direction be issued to the police authorities to take into consideration the submission of the petitioner regarding marriage, etc.before proceeding further. The aforesaid direction has been sought by the petitioner on an a...
Sandeep Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Jamuna Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1....C.E.A.No.6 o23. 7.2012 Ms.Seema Agrawal, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Counsel for respondents. I.A.8208/11 : Learned counsel for the respondents prays for further four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is opposed by the appellant who submitted that in case of adjournment, recovery against the appellant may be stayed. It was submitted by Ms.Agrawal that against the appellant there is recovery of Rs.2,60,000/-, out of which appellant has already deposited Rs.90,000/- before the respondent No.3 at the time of filing of the appeal. Considering aforesaid, we direct thus :- 1. Appellant to deposit 50% of the total amount of demand after deducting the amount, if any, deposited by the appellant before respondent No.3.2. The aforesaid be done by the appellant within a period of two weeks from today.3. On compliance of the aforesaid, remaining recovery from the appellant shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. List for hearing in the month of October,2012. C.C...
Hari Om Patwa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.11118/2012 23.7.2012 Shri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging a show cause notice Annexure P/11 dated 6.7.2012 issued to the petitioner and contending that the action proposed to be taken is contrary to certain orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.432/2007 Annexure P/3 passed by a Division Bench and without conducting n enquiry, petitioner wants interference into the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is seen that when earlier appointment of the petitioner was proposed to be canceled, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.5041/2003 and vide order Annexure P/4 dated 2.4.2009 a Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and issued a directi...
Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1....R.P.No.666 o23. 7.2012 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Rajendra Tiwar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Tripathi, Counsel for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for Respondents/State submitted that he has been informed by the Director, Medical Education that there is no government quota in the College of respondent No.3 and because of this the petitioner cannot be accommodated for the academic session 2012-13. The aforesaid position is disputed by the petitioner and also by Shri Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate who have submitted that there is government quota in the College of respondent No.3. It was also submitted that there is inflated quota in the college of respondent No.3 of government. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Director, Medical Education to file an affidavit, clarifying the aforesaid position. List for hearing on 31.7.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Santosh Kumar Khaskalam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10383/2012 Santosh Kumar Khaskalam versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Heard Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Bhanu Yadav for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.7.2010 by which the petitioner has been prohibited to function as a dealer in arms on account of the fact that his licence has not been renewed. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner had already filed applications for renewal which were pending before the authorities specifically the documents at pages 26, 29 and 31 of the petition, but instead of taking any decision thereon, the impugned order has been issued. It is further stated that the petitioner had also filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Betul on 23.10.2011 as well as before the Secretary of the Department on 11.4.2012 requesting them to decide the petitioner's represent...
D.P. Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10124/2012 D.P.Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of a direction to the respondent no.3 to act upon the complaint filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of respondent no.3 submits that in case the complaint filed by the petitioner is in the proper format prescribed by law, it shall be processed by the respondents expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for respondent no.3, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as no further orders are necessary. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Dr. K.P. Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10985/2012 23.7.2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor (Maths) in Government Girls P.G.College, Rewa. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Government College, Budhar, District Shahdol. Inter alia contending that petitioner is about 63 years of age and if he is transferred he would have certain personal difficulties in carrying out the transfer, this writ petition has been filed. That apart, it is stated that due to paucity of Maths Professor, the Principal of the College has recommended for retaining the petitioner at Rewa and therefore, transfer is illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that petitioner has been transferred on administrative consideration and in transfer of the petitioner no statutory rules or regulations are shown to be violated or malafides are made out....
Dimple Sikandar Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.9620/2012 Dimple Sikandar Ali versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Heard Shri Saurabh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Katni to lodge a fiRs.information report against respondent nos.5 to 7 and to initiate action against them. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the petitioner has already approached the Superintendent of Police, Katni, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur and the Chief Secretary, Government of M.P., for mitigation of his grievance which is pending before the said authorities. That apart, as far as registering of a case against respondent nos.5 to 7 and prosecuting them is concerned, the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the competent court as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sak...
Rajneesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.8901/2012 Rajneesh Kumar Shrivastava versus Indian Oil Corporation & ORS.23.07.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.5.2012 relating to allotment of the Kisan Seva Kendra Outlet. Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel who, was directed by this Court to accept notice on behalf of the respondent and seek instructions, states that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell for mitigation of his grievance. He further states that in case he does so, the Grievance Redressal Cell shall consider and decide the representation expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Cell. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, t...
Gulab Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
23.07.2012. Shri R.K.Verma for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Naib Tehsildar and is posted in Orchha, District Tikamgarh. By the impugned order he has been transferred from Tikamgarh to District Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioners wife has undergone surgery recently, a tumour from her abdomen weighing more than 5 Kg has been removed, and she is under treatment from a Specialist Hospital at Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh, which is nearer to Orchha and if the petitioner is required to go to District Balaghat now, it may cause serious inconvenience to him. Keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar difficulty expressed by the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order, respondent No.1 shall consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to his posting...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »