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.
Vijay Kumar Nandanwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1 W.P.No.6592/2006 W.P.No.6592/2006 20/07/2012 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondents/State. Challenging the action of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner and the consequential proposal/action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. The orders impugned are 25.4.2005 and 22.4.2006. Petitioner's father was working in Agriculture Department in the State of M.P, even much prior to the reorganization of the State. Petitioner was born in Raipur originally in the State of M.P and according to the petitioner, they belong to the caste Halba which is shown as Schedule Tribe in the State of M.P as well as in the State of Maharashtra as per the Constitution (Schedule Tribe) Order, 1950. Petitioner's father had migrated from the State of Maharashtra. Even though, various reasons are indicated in the writ petition and the ...
Vishnu Prasad Vs. the State of M.P.
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.2045/1996 Vishnu Prasad VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.Usmani, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 20th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.11.1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.734/1992, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, marriage of the deceased Jeera Bai took place with the appellant in the year 1990. She was one amongst 5 daughters of the complainant Kuttan Sahu (P.W.2). On 14.4.1992, she was found dead due to burn i...
Sanjay Raut Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
19.07.2012. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 22.6.2012 passed by the Collector, Chhindwara suspending the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector is not empowered to suspend the petitioner and, therefore, the suspension by the Collector is illegal. Learned counsel for the State brings to the notice of this Court a Notification dated 23.5.1996 issued by the State Government delegating power under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 to the Collector of the District concerned for suspending an employee of all Departments, except the Police Department. In view of the aforesaid delegation of power to the Collector by the State Government contention of the petitioner that the Collector cannot suspend him prima facie is unsustainable. The second ground canvassed is tha...
Smt.Munni Singh Shayam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
W.P.No.10971/2012 19-7-2012 Shri V.D.S. Chouhan , learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Inviting my attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9669/2012, Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector of the District concerned is not competent to initiate departmental enquiry in accordance to the provisions of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 as the petitioner is a Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department and Collector is not competent to issue the charge sheet and conduct an enquiry. This argument of the petitioner advanced in W.P.No.9669/2012 was accepted and inter order of stay was granted by this Court on 4.7.2012 but during the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court a Notification issued by the State Government ...
Bhangi Dass Vs. Smt.Bati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR S.A No.353/1996 Bhangi Das S/o Sukarta Das .................................Appellants VERSUS Smt. Bati Bai w/o Budhan Das.........................................Respondent ======== For the appellant :Shri Aadil Usmani, Advocate. None for the respondent. Present :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (19-07-2012) This appeal is by the plaintiff, who has lost in both the courts. The appeal was initially admitted on following substantial question of law:- Whether the finding recorded by the appellate court that the appellant is not entitled to any share in the property, is perverse in view of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act ?.. Thereafter, today during the course of hearing, the following additional substantial question of law was framed. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?..2. In order to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law, reference to few facts is necessary. The plaintiff file...
Meraw Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1....W.A.No.18 of 2010 Meraw Ali State of M.P.& otheRs.19.7.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Anshuman Singh, Counsel for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.134 of 2005(s) by which a writ petition preferred against the order Annexure P-11 dated 12.1.2005 was dismissed. Vide Annexure P-11, the disciplinary authority had found that the appellant had marked false attendance of one Smt. Pana Bai, while in fact she was dead on the aforesaid date, imposed punishment of dismissal and also direct recovery of Rs.26,746/- against the appellant. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition while in fact the charge against the appellant was not proved. The appellant had not made false entry in the attendance register in respect of attendance of Smt.Pana Bai. There was no charge against the appellant in respect of financial loss or receiving the ...
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs. Lal Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
W.P.No.13059/2011 19/07/2012 Shri Rohit Sagoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order passed by the controlling authority, exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this writ petition is filed directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy provided under Section 7 of the said Act. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the effect that when the statute itself provides a provision for filing an appeal against the impugned order, the petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable in the Bank, therefore, he has filed this writ petition without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy available. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. When the competent authority ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
W.P.No.1694/2007 (s) 19-7-2012 Shri Rajesh Tiwari , learned Govt. Adv.for the petitioner- State. Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging an ex-parte award passed by the Labour Court, Betul on 26.5.2005 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and an order dated 10.1.2006 rejecting an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award, this petition has been filed by the competent authority of the State Government. Respondent Narendra Kumar was engaged as a muster roll employee in a Watch and Ward Section. He had worked in the same capacity between 16.12.1993 to 29.2.2000. As he was alleged to have committed some misconduct, it is the case of the petitioner that an enquiry was conducted and based on the guilt recorded in the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to him and thereafter his services terminated. On an industrial dispute raised by the employee, matter was referred to Labour Court on 25.7.2002 and in the sa...
Anand Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.547 OF 200.Anand Kumar Dwivedi. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 19th day of July, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 1/3/2008 passed by the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short Act.), Satna in Special Case No.17/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Act and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine am...
Rohit Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. Vs. Yogesh Puruswani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1....F.A.No.373 o19. 7.2012 Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for the appellant. Shri J.K.Verma, Counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Anil Lala, counsel for respondent No.3. I.A.6355/11 under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. It was intimated by him that a sale deed has been executed by the trial Court in favour of respondent No.4 on 17.7.2012 and he may be allowed a short time to file reply along with the copy of the sale deed. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing after two weeks. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »