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.
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Rajesh @ Sipahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
F.A.No.609/2012 M.P.Housing Board Rajesh & others 23.7.2012 Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, counsel for appellant. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be also summoned. I.A.No.6787/2012 for stay. Issue notice of this application to respondent no.1. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Till next date of hearing, following directions are issued :- 1. Appellant to deposit 50% of the enhanced amount before the reference Court within a period of thirty days from today.2. On deposit of said amount, the respondent no.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the same, on furnishing due security to the satisfaction of reference Court with an undertaking that in case this appeal is allowed or some other order is passed, the respondent no.1 shall comply with the said order within a period of thirty days from the date of such an order. Be ...
Muniya JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10165/2012 (Muniya Jain & anr. versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 23.07.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for police protection alleging that as they have entered into marriage on their own, they are being threatened by respondent Nos.4 and 5. As is apparent from a perusal of the petition, the petitioners have not stated as to when and which of the respondents has threatened them with any kind of consequences. The documents filed by them only indicate that they have entered into marriage and have informed the police authorities only about their entering into marriage with each other. No FIR or complaint has ever been lodged by the petitioners before the police authorities regarding any kind of threat or harassment by the respondents. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue a direction against the respondents. The reliance placed by the learne...
Smt. Jayanti Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10295/12 (Smt. Jayanti Shukla versus State of MP and otheRs.23.07.2012 Heard Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allot House No.71, Vaijnath Bhavan, Prakash Chouraha, Rewa to the petitioner on account of the fact she was a government servant and after retirement, she is still residing and holding the house in question. From a perusal of the petition and averments made therein it is clear that the house in question was initially allotted to the petitioner on account of the fact that she was working as Upper Division Teacher in the year 1997, however, subsequently, she has retired and the house in question has not been allotted to her son which fact is evident from a perusal of the petitioner's representation Annexure P/7 filed by the petitioner along with the petition. In the circumstances, as the petitioner is neither an allottee no...
The State of M.P. Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.421 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Randheer Singh & others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 23rd day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.1.1995 passed in ST No.109/1993 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 328/34 and 201 of IPC.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.4.1993 Sundar S/o Shri Kumhar aged 7 years and Jabbu S/o Shri Kumhar aged 4 years expired in the night due to consumption of some poisonous substance. One Malkhan with the help of Kotwa...
Jaybeer Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10242/12 (Jaybeer Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.23.07.2012 Heard Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa is not taking any action on the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 36 of the M.P.Gram Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,1993 wherein he has brought to the notice of the authority the fact that the respondent No.3 has been convicted by the competent court and therefore, become disqualified to hold the post of Member of Zila Panchayat, Rewa. It is also submitted that though the complaint has been filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner on 22.11.2011 but no steps have been taken thereon by the said authority till date. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State on advance copy submits that the Commissioner shall...
V.K.Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10740/2012 W.P.No.10740/2012 23/07/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondents/State. Petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Engineer Public Works Department and is posted in Sub-Division No.1 Jabalpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred from Jabalpur to Damoh and challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner and on the ground that it is on request of Respondent No.4, who has been accommodated in Jabalpur and petitioner has been transferred. Learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner has remained in Jabalpur for 15 years and, therefore, not he is being transferred. Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel submits that the petitioner's wife is also working as Teacher in Jabalpur and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clea...
Sudarshanacharya Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.8395/12 Sudarshanacharya Dixit State of M.P.& others 23.7.2012 Shri G.R.Saket, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Pandey, learned Dy.A.G.submitted that Ms.Kavita Dixit herself had appeared before the Police Station Kareli, Narsinghpur, from where she has been brought by Shri R.L.Armo, SHO and laday constable Ms.Nandani Singh. Ms.Kavita Dixit wife of petitioner has appeared in Court. It was submitted by her that her age is 24 yeaRs.She is major and is residing at Jabalpur of her own free will for last one year. It was also submitted that her husband is harassing her and because of this, she left her matrimonial house. On being asked why she had not informed her husband in respect of her whereabouts, it was submitted by her that she is residing at Jabalpur and purposely she had not intimated to her husband in respect of her whereabouts as she was apprehending that her husband will cause danger to her life and limb. It was also stated...
Hafiz MirajuddIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
W.P.No.10185/2012 (Hafiz Mirajuddin & anr. versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 23.07.2012 Heard Shri Vivek Mourya, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order passed by the Secretary, Masjid Committee thereby removing them from their respective posts. Admittedly the impugned order is appealable. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he be granted liberty to assail the order by filing an appeal. Liberty as prayed for is granted. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioners take up appropriate proceedings against the impugned order, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. It is further observed that the representation of the petitioners claiming documents may also be decided by the respondents. To enable the authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served o...
Jai Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 1 Writ Appeal No.459/2009 23.07.2012 Sarvshri R.P.Agarwal, and Rameshwar Neekhra, Senior Advocates, for the appellant. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate, appears for the applicant namely Lakhan Singh Mourya, Jagdish Tomar and Ajay Sirothi by filing an application for intervention. A writ petition was filed before the Single Bench in which the appellant had questioned the letter dated 12.2.2009 addressed to the Chief Municipal Officer by the Additional Secretary, Govt. of M.P., Department of Urban Administration and Development by which he was called upon to decide the matter in respect of ex- tension of period of lease deed, which was earlier granted to the appellant in the year 1989 for a period of 30 yeaRs.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 21.5.2009 and submitted that the question in- volved in this writ appeal is only in respect of cancellation of the earlier...
Maa Narmada Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1 W.P.No.10340/2012 Maa Narmada Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Maryadit versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Shri R.S.Mendiretta learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 21.03.2012 and order dated 13.4.2012, issued by the SDO Pipariya, District Hoshangabad cancelling the allotment of the fair price shop allotted to them under the provisions of the M.P.(Food Stuff) Public Distribution Scheme 1991 pursuant to and subsequent to coming into force of the M.P.Public Distribution Scheme (Control) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, 2009).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P No.3487/2010 has upheld the validity of the Control Order, 2009. It is further stated that in an identical petition i.e.W.A No.52/2012, a Division Ben...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »