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 Kumar Kahar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1....W.P.No.5482 of 2012 Shiv Kumar Kahar State of M.P.& ors 18.7.2012 Shri Amit Patel, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Nilesh Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, C.S.P., Gorakhpur, Shri M.K.Baloria, S.I., P.S.Cant, Shri U.S.Thakur, ASI, P.S.Cant, Ms.Santoshi Durbe, Lady Constable, P.S.Cant, Jabalpur are present. We have taken the matter in the Chamber. We have enquired Ku. Jyoti Kahar and her parents. Ku. Jyoti stated that she is ready to go along with her parents who are present in the Chamber. They have also shown their willingness to take the custody of Ku. Jyoti. We have also asked the petitioner and his wife to take care of Ku. Jyoti till she attains the age of majority. They have assured that they will take all the care of Ku. Jyoti and see that no harm is caused to her life and limb. Ku. Jyoti agreed to go along with her parents and at present, prima facie we find that she is minot as per h...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
WA No.740 of 2012. 18.7.2012. Shri Jaideep Singh for the appellants. I.A.No.7800/12 seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order It is submitted by the appellant that the certified copy of the order has been filed in W.A.No.539/12 which has already been entertained by this Court and in the present case the appellant has filed Photostat copy of the impugned order which is common in all the matteRs.Considering the aforesaid, at present we exempt the appellants from filing the certified copy of the order passed by the Single Bench. It is submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the State that in other matter, appeal has been entertained and interim order has been passed. He has referred an order dt.16.5.12 in W.A.No.539/12. In view of the aforesaid,we direct issuance of notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a period of one week by RAD. Notice be made returnable before next date of hearing. Be listed on 26.7.2012 for analogous hearing wit...
B.B. Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.10382 / 2012 (B.B.Pandey .versus State of M.P.& otheRs.18-07-2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner, who is a police inspector and is incharge of Bahoriband Police Station, District Katni, has been sent on training for a period of six months to Indore by the impugned order dated 4-6-2012, totally overlooking the circular of the respondents themselves dated 14-8-2007 as well as the fact that the petitioner has only about one year and a few months of service remaining and, therefore, the training sought to be given to him would go waste and would also result in wastage of public money. The petitioner submits that he is at present on medical leave on account of the fact that he is suffering from urinary tract infection and fever and has, therefore, sought exemption from trai...
Arun Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Arun Tiwari. versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10811 18. 7.2012: Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the suspension order annexurer P-1 dated 7.7.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is seen from the order of suspension that when the school in question was inspected, certain irregularities were found and petitioner being the incharge, he has been suspended pending departmental enquiry against him. Challenge to the order of suspension is made merely on the ground that before suspending the petitioner neither any show-cause notice was issued, not any enquiry conducted before suspending and by placing reliance on circular Annexure P-6 fixing the time table of the school it is stated that petitioner cannot be held responsible for the reason given in the suspension order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that grounds raised by the petitioner, as in...
S.B. Mirza Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.6367/2012 18-7-2012 Shri Ajay Raizada , learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the charge sheet issued to the petitioner under the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the Police Regulations, this writ petition has been filed seeking a prayer for quashing the charge sheet. Quashment of charge sheet is sought for on two counts. Firstly, a punishment of fine of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner and therefore, if further proceedings are held, the same would amount to double jeopardy. Prima facie this argument looks attractive but the question is as to whether recovery of the compensation as recommended by the Human Rights Commission can be termed as punishment for misconduct under the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules, this question can be considered and decided by the disciplinary authority and petitioner may raise such objection before the appropriat...
Avneesh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 W.P.No.9924/2012 Avneesh Sharma versus State of M.P.& ORS.18.07.2012 Heard Shri Priyank Choubey learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the police authorities to arrest respondent nos.5 & 6 pursuant to Crime No.114/2012 registered at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen for offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. From a perusal of the petition, it is clear that the police, after investigation, have already submitted a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Gairatganj and the matter is pending decision before the competent criminal court. The petitioner has also not specifically stated as to whether respondent nos.5 & 6 have been released on bail by the competent court or otherwise at large. Be that as it may, as the matter is already seized by the competent court and is pending decision before the same, I find no reason to entertain the same. The appropriate remedy of t...
Smt. Sangita Tiwari Vs. Duijee Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 F.A.No.624/2012 Smt.Sangita Tiwari Duijee Yadav & others 18.7.2012 Shri Dileep Pandey, Counsel for appellant. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. Record of the trial Court be called. I.A.No.6810/12 under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 of CPC Issue notice of this application to the respondents No.1 & 2. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondents No.1 & 2 shall not alienate the suit property without seeking prior permission of this Court. Appellant to serve this exparte temporary injunction to the respondents No.1 & 2 as is required under Order 39 rule 3 of CPC and to file compliance report within one week in the Registry. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Sunita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Appeal No.770/2012 18.7.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for appellant. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent. This appeal is directed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13946/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The present appeal is also barred by 97 days for which appellant has filed I.A.No.7988/2012 seeking condonation of delay. From perusal of the record, we find that confiscation order of the vehicle was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, whose appeal was dismissed by the Conservator of Forest. The orders passed by the Conservator of Forest and Divisional Forest Officer were under challenge in criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Seoni, who allowed the revision and had ...
Naresh Kumar Sahu Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 W.P.No.9916/2012 Naresh Kumar Sahu versus M.P.Vidhyut Vitran & ORS.18.07.2012 Heard Shri Manish Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, prays that the respondent no.3 be directed to consider the petitioner's representation, Annexure P-7, regarding release of the payment due to him under the contract for installing electric poles and lines. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a certified copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before respondent no.3 within fifteen days, the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. It is made clear that as the dispute between the parties is purely contra...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »