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.
Mohd. Shameem Vs. Municipal Corporation Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 MCC No.757/2012 23.07.2012 Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.1419/2006 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 26.06.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant was unwell and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to non- appearance of the counsel the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2012 passed in W.P No.1419/2006 is recalled and is directed...
Panjeelal Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1....W.P.No.6518 o23. 7.2012 Shri Vijay Shrivastava, Counsel present alongwith the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Smt. Manju Vishwakarma, wife of the petitioner was produced by Shri Hemant Padav, Sub Inspector, P.S.Gorakhpur and Lady Constable Ms.Bhuveneshwari. We have enquired from Smt. Manju, she has stated that she was willfully living with respondent No.6 at Nagpur. She was not in wrongful confinement and not she will live with her husband, petitioner Panjeelal and son Rupesh, who are present in the Court. Petitioner Panjeelal also stated that not his wife Smt. Manju Vishwakarma will live with them. As Smt. Manju Vishwakarma was not in wrongful confinement, she was earlier residing with respondent No.6 willfully, we close the proceedings. Smt. Manju Vishwakarma is also set free, as she is major. With the aforesaid directions, the proceedings are closed. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Mahesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2348/2011 Mahesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 23rd day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.9.2011, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.7 of 2009 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine each of them has to undergo...
Dr. R.K. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.11083/2010 23/7/2012: Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by respondent No.2, the Joint Director refusing remuneration to the petitioner as per the contract of appointment. Record indicates that petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years and in the order of appointment petitioner's remuneration was fixed at Rs.26000/- per month. According to the petitioner the aforesaid remuneration was fixed after due concurrence and agreement between the parties and was also in accordance to stipulations issued by State Government in this regard. However, unilaterally this contract is changed and vide order Annexure P/ 5 it is stated that as petitioner is an retired employee and amount of remuneration will be Rs.26000/- subject to deduction of pension received by the petitioner. Inter alia contending that o...
General Manager (Randr) Vs. Ram Kunwar Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.487/2012 23.7.2012 Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.2,3 & 9. I.A.No.6014/12 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 11.5.2012, 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.5469/12 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 required un...
Rakesh Kumar Khamparia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
23.07.2012. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Petitioner is working as Revenue Inspector and is posted in Collectorate, Jabalpur. Vide order-dated 15.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred as Revenue Inspector, Chhatarpur and challenge is made to the aforesaid order of transfer. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention of the provision of sections 105 and 106, of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and argues that the post of Collector is formed circle-wise and appointment of Revenue Inspector is made by the Collector, and as a Revenue Inspector is a District Cadre post, transfer of a Revenue Inspector from one district to another is not permissible. Accordingly, the fiRs.ground canvassed is that the transfer of the petitioner from one district to another is not permissible in view of the provision of sections 105 and 106 of the Code. That apart, pointing out various difficulties and breach of ...
Anand Kumar Tiwari Vs. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.A.No.782 o23. 7.2012. Neeraj Ashar for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dt.17.5.2012 in W.P.No.7715/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondent to re-value the answer script of the petitioner and to declare him as cleared for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, was dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission. The controveRs.involved in the case is that the appellant had appeared in the eligibility test of 2011 held on 22.1.2012. The appellant had obtained 81.51 marks and could not come within the zone of eligible candidates for the main examination. This action of the respondent was under challenge before the writ Court. The writ Court found that the Court cannot re-appreciate the model answeRs.when the Examination Board has already assessed the inteRs.merits of the candidate on the basis of the model answeRs.No relief was granted to the appellant, relying on the judgme...
Gourishankar Burdey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.11093/2012 23.7.2012 Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Assistant Grade III in Treasury Office, Satna. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Zila Pension Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made only on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and by contending that on the representation of certain other employee like Shri Jashraj Singh Baghel and transfer is to grant accommodation to this person, transfer is illegal. Merely because transfer is ordered for considering the representation of an employee and he is being transferred in place of the petitioner, that by itself is No. a ground for interference into the matter in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case o...
Naval Singh Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
23.07.2012. Shri Deepak Okhade for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is presently posted as Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as CEO).Janpad Panchayat Sanchi, District Raisen. Petitioner has been transferred vide order-dated 11.7.2012 to Janpad Panchayat, Bina, District Sagar as CEO. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has been posted at present place only on 25.8.2010 and, therefore, as he has not completed 3 years posting in the present place, the transfer is in violation to Clause 9.9 of the Transfer Policy and is, therefore, illegal. Merely because the transfer policy is violated that by itself is not a ground for interfering into the matter in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus S.L.Abbas [1993(4) SCC 357]., and by a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary versus State of Madhya Prades...
Ashish Kumar Patel Vs. Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Bho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 MCC No.811/2012 23.07.2012 Shri M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.9122/2010 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 06.07.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant could not notice the case in the cause list and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2012 passed in W.P No.9122/2010 is re...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »