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.
H K Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.10186/2010 (S) 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Original Application No.35/2010. As the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, we find no good reason to admit the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps...
Virendra Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.957/2012 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Transferred Application No.932/2010. As the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, we find no good reason to admit the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps...
M/S Unity Constructions Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.10091/2012 20.7.2012 Shri Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.A.G., for respondent no.1. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, counsel for respondent no.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at present petitioner is seeking direction against respondent no.1 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner, which are still pending with it. On raising such contention Shri Kaurav, learned Dy.A.G., submitted that the petitioner has not served copy of petition, so he is not in a position to make any statement in the matter. In view of aforesaid petitioner is directed to serve a copy of petition along with annexures to Shri Kaurav, during the couRs.of the day, against acknowledgment. Be listed for hearing on 25.7.2012. C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
K.G. Sadasivan Nair Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.1776/2012 (S) 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Transferred Application No.438/2010. As the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, we find no good reason to admit the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps...
T.S. Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.7296/2010 (S) 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Original Application No.35/2010. As the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, we find no good reason to admit the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps...
Narayan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1634/2004 Narayan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Sandeep Koshta, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 20th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.8.2004, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST. No.224/2003 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced for 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- failing which two months simple imprisonment in addition.2. The prosecution's story in short is that the complainant Dhoopchand (P.W.1) had lodged ...
Bhagwan Singh Sengar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.20692/2011 20.07.2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 to 7 on advance copy. They are heard. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby permission to respondents No.10 and 11 for operating the mining lease has been granted. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that he is one of the villagers of Village Sarsed Tehsil Navgaon District Chhatarpur where mine in question has been given to respondents No.10 and 11 but the conditions which are embodied in the order dated 24.06.2010 of respondent No.3 are not complied with since the allottees (Respondents No.10 and11) have not taken not from the Pollution Board and therefore the Collector be directed not to permit these respondents to carry out the mining extraction. Shri Verma, learned Gover...
Nisheeth JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.9473/2012 (Nisheeth Jain versus State of M.P.& ors.) 20.07.2012 Shri Sachin Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be directed to process the petitioner's representation regarding release of an outstanding amount of Rs.85,892/-, which is due to him and take a decision thereon expeditiously. The learned Panel Lawyer submits that the respondent authorities shall take further steps pursuant to the letter issued by the Executive Engineer dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure P-11) expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition befor...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.2214/2005 20.7.2012 Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board has given particulars of pending lists of interlocutory applications with regard to the religious structures situated in the cantonment area. Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel who filed interlocutory applications states that he may be given sometime to advance final arguments. To this prayer Smt. Indira Nair has no objection. These applications will be considered positively on the next date of hearing. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur submits that on the next date of hearing he will file the compliance report regarding demolition of the unauthorized construction of Durga Temple situated at Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur. Prayer allowed. List the case for further orders on 17.8.2012. (AJIT SINGH) (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE JUDGE ss...
Amarjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.6176/2011 (S) 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Transferred Application No.325/2010. As the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, we find no good reason to admit the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the petitioner subject to his filing photo copy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »