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.
Shiv Dayal Pandey Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition No.2206/2011 20.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, whereby it has dismissed the petitioners Transferred Application No.214/2010. 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...
Smt. Manisha Tiwari Vs. Sunil Prakash Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
MCrC No.1228/2009. 20.7.2012. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, Advocate for applicant. 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 of the respondents in respect of offence punishable under Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The corresponding judgment was passed by Smt. Sangeeta Yadav, JMFC, Chhindwara on 12.9.2008 in Cri. Case No.218/04. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with respondent no.1, son of respondent no.2, on 17.7.1997 in Chhindwara. Allegations against them, in short, are that they failed to return the gift items worth Rs.41,000/-, cash amount of Rs.11,000/- and ornaments as well as dowry articles worth Rs.1,40,454/-, received by them in connection with the marriage. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the finding of not guilty was recorded for the reason that there was no cogent and creditworthy evidence on record to substantiate...
Smt. Shambha Bai JaIn Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :4491. of 2010(S) Smt. Shambha Bai Jain - V/s - State of MP and Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Deepak Okhade, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 20/07/2012 Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting her claim for Family Pension vide order-dated 31.7.2009 Annexure P/1, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Petitioner is widow of Late K.C.Jain, who was working in the Cooperative Department. He was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the department vide order-dated 12.7.1961 Annexure P/2, and worked for a period of less than two years when on 19.5.1963 he died. After death of Shri K.C.Jain the M.P.Civil S...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Smt. Rukmani Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
FA No.696 of 2012. 20.7.2012. Shri S.D.Mishra for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt.14.11.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in Civil Suit No.66-A/11. The suit was filed on two grounds; that the respondent was living in adultery with one Harprasad and respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty and has deserted the appellant for the last two years before filing of the petition for divorce before the Family Court. We have gone through the record. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence has recorded the finding that both; husband and wife are residing separately since last five yeaRs.Earlier they were jointly residing. The child in question is aged 12 years and as per the allegation of the appellant that the child was born within six months from the date of marriage, trial Court considered this aspect and found that before five years both; appellant and respondent were residing together as husband wife and i...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.P. Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1 W.A.No.790/2012 State of M.P.& others R.P.Shrivastava 20.7.2012 Shri P.K.Kaurav, Counsel for appellants. It is submitted by Shri Kaurav that respondent R.P.Shrivastava was given promotion after fiRs.Kramonnati, so he was not entitled for second Kramonnati within 24 years which was wrongly allowed to him and vide order dated 5.11.2009, such second Kramonnati was withdrawn. But from the perusal of the order, we find that no such reason was assigned for withdrawing second Kramonnati. Apart from this, no reply was filed before the writ Court. In aforesaid circumstances, if the Single Bench has allowed the writ petition in the light of judgment in Vajra Sen Jain versus State of M.P.W.P.No.824/2004(s).no fault is found. However, if the appellants are having material in this regard, they may approach to the Single Bench seeking review of the order dated 5.9.2011. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge...
Union Od India Vs. M.S. Chandel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
20/07/2012 W.P.No.18483.06(s) Writ Petition No.18483 of 2006(s) ( U n i o n o f I n d i a a n d 3 o t he r s V s . M . S . C h a n d e l ) 20/07/2012 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ashok Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30-08-2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, whereby the Tribunal while upholding the entitlement of the respondent, an Accountant, in the Department of Posts, for Rs.180/- has quashed the order of recovery of Rs.13,041/- which was directed by order dated 21-01-2004 and 04-04-2005 and has allowed the O.A.No.386/2005. The Union of India and its functionaries being aggrieved by the said order have preferred this petition. Respondent while posted as Accountant at Head Post Office, Betul, vide order dated 17-10-1989, was fixed at Rs.1125/- which was later on revised to Rs.4400/- + special allowance un...
Shailendra Singh Vs. the Commissioner and Registrar,co-operative Socie ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.10147/2012 (Shailendra Agrawal versus The Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies and otheRs.20.07.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the present petition is that it be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to decide the petitioner's dispute/representation Annexure P/3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is of the opinion that as it is apparent from a perusal of Annexure P/3, the representation filed by the petitioner, that the alleged dispute has not been raised in clear and specific terms not does it mention the detailed grounds of which the petitioner seeks interference of the authority in the election, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the dispute and file a detailed representation in that regard bef...
The State of Mp. Vs. Dhannu Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1799/1996 State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS Dhannulal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri L.C.Chourasiya, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 20th day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.7.1995 passed by learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balaghat in Special case No.82/1994, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act').2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 7.12.1994 at about 11 a.m. in the morning, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was dressin...
Dinesh Kumar Birthre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
W.P.No.9529/2012 20.7.2012 Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is allow...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1 W.A.No.814/2012 State of M.P.& others Rajendra Prasad Pandey 20.7.2012 Shri P.K.Kaurav, Counsel for appellants. Shri S.P.Mishra, Counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.7.2011 in W.P.No.14642/10(s) by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed on the basis of judgment passed in W.P.No.8938/09(s)-Indramani Tiwari versus State of M.P.decided on 28.9.2010. This appeal is also barred by limitation, so appellants have filed an application IA.No.8664/12 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has decided the matter on the basis of judgment passed in Indramani Tiwari (supra) while the judgment in the case of Indramani Tiwari (supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court vide order dated 11.5.2012 in C.C.No.8997/2012. It is submitted that there are two conflicting orders of the Single Bench and the controveRs.deserves to be decided by a Division Bench. Shri S....
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »