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.
Dr. Narendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.P.No.12554/11 31/07/12 Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for respondent No.2/State. Aggrieved by the communication dated 3/02/11 issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for participating in the process of selection for appointment to the post of 'Professor' , petitioner had filed this writ petition. Various grounds are raised in this writ petition to show that the petitioner was qualified to participate in the process of selection as contemplated in the advertisement in question, inspite thereof, his candidature has been rejected. Respondents by filing the return have tried to justify their action. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that an interim order was passed by this Court and subject to final decision of this writ petition, petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of selection. As the petitioner had participated in th...
Manoj Kumar Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.12811/2006 (s) MAnot KUMAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents State. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 31-7-2012 ) Petitioner who was working as a Constable in the Police Department has been dismissed from service. Dismissal of the petitioner was due to certain allegations of misconduct leveled against him in a charge sheet Annexure P/ 1 dated 16.5.2005. A departmental enquiry was conducted and on the basis of finding of guilt recorded in a departmental enquiry, punishment in question of dismissal from service has been imposed. Appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed, petitioner is before this Court2. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, sta...
Hiralal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.174/1996 Hiralal VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Shri Santosh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.1.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T.No.47/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and sentenced for a term of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and another term of 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, the appellant was married to one Ramlali but, since she was not bl...
M/S Oswal Chemicalsa and Fertilizer Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
....1 W.P.No.1474 o31. 7.2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shashank Verma, Counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that today he has filed an affidavit of Anil Kumar Bhalla in compliance of order dated 24.7.2012. Shri Kaurav prays for further two weeks time to file affidavit of the concerned Secretary in compliance of order dated 24.7.2012. On the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.1 at the time of filing of the affidavit may also look into the provisions as contained under Sub Section 11 of Section 32 of the M.P.Commercial Act, 1994, which provides relaxation in the payment of interest and penalty and may submit a specific affidavit in this regard because in the matter of appellant installments were allowed by the respondents which the appellant had deposited much before the last date of payment of installments. The aforesa...
Rajkumar Singh and ors. Vs. Pushpendar Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
FA No.04/1999 31.07.2012 Shri Awinath Patel, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri G.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4, although served. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned Dy. GA for the respondent no.5. After arguing for 10-15 minutes on merits of the matter in response of some query of the court based on Section 164 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code 1959, instead to argue further today, appellants' counsel seeks short adjournment to examine some more legal position before making the submissions. Let this matter be listed for further arguments in the week commencing 21.8.2012. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
M/S Wallace Flour Mill Co.Ltd. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
FA No.731/10. 31.7.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. In the couRs.of arguments on I.A.No.11349/10, appellants application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the same is filed barred by 57 days in response of some query of the Court based on some averments of the application as well as availability of alternate forum to resolve the alleged dispute of this appeal on which, instead to argue further appellants counsel prayed for appropriate direction to place this matter before the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement or to withdraw this appeal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum to resolve the alleged dispute. The respondents counsel did not have any objection in giving such direction to place this matter before the Lok Adalat. In view of the aforesaid by virtue of Section 89 of CPC., Office is directed to place this matter before the Lok Adalat which is to be held in near future. Certi...
Dr. Zakir HussaIn College of Education Vs. Western Regional Committee ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 591/2011 31.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separately in W.P. No. 14932/2010 Jawaharlal Nehru College v. Barkatullah University and others this petition is also disposed of with the following directions: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with Western Regional Committee and respective examining bodies, i.e., Universities, shall take a decision within a period of one month in respect of admissions made for the academic session 200809 as to whether the same was in consonance with the Regulations framed by the NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the norms laid down by the NCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges w...
Abhilasha College of Education Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 18354/2010 31.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separately in W.P. No. 14932/2010 Jawaharlal Nehru College v. Barkatullah University and others this petition is also disposed of with the following directions: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with Western Regional Committee and respective examining bodies, i.e., Universities, shall take a decision within a period of one month in respect of admissions made for the academic session 200809 as to whether the same was in consonance with the Regulations framed by the NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the norms laid down by the NCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges ...
Devdatt Tiwari Vs. Geeta Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
S.A.No.248/2012 31.07.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : i) Whether two Courts below committed error to decree the suit without having any proof that the suit property is the ancestral property, however, the finding so recoded in the suit for partition is perveRs.?. ii) Whether two Courts below committed error to declare the registered sale deed executed by Chhotibai before partition in favour of appellant on 6/7/2000 as null and void, and the finding so recorded in this respect is unsustainable and perveRs.?. Issue notice to the respondents, on payment of P.F.within three days. Also heard on I.A.No.2450/2012, which is an application for stay. Until further ordeRs.status-quo, as exist today, with respect to suit property shall be maintained by the parties. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts...
Sugreev Prasad Patel Vs. Smt.Premwati Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.875/05. 31.7.2012. Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Brajesh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent No.5. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.8241/12, appellant's application for recalling/ review of the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the coordinate Bench whereby on account of non-appearance of the appellant's counsel the interim stay granted earlier has been vacated, as such subsequent to passing such order the appellant has changed the counsel to prosecute this appeal and such counsel has filed the impugned. It is also noted that aforesaid order vacating the interim stay was passed by the coordinate Bench on the date when matter was fixed for final hearing as no one was present to prosecute the appeal. As the matter has already been listed for final hearing on earlier occasion, therefore instead to hearing the argument on the aforesaid IA, in the interes...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »