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.
Sangeeta Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9444/12 (Sangeeta Tiwari versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 09.07.2012 Heard Shri J.L.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigation of her grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per ...
Kishore Kumbhare Vs. Collector Balaghat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9421/2012 (Kishore Kumbhare & anr. versus Collector, Balaghat & Ors.) 09.07.2012 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging non-compliance and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Collector, Balaghat dated 13.03.2012, by the sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Waraseoni. It is stated that inspite of the fact that the Collector has stayed the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 40 of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).the Sub-Divisional Officer is proceeding further in the matter and has also issued a notice under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam. It is stated that the petitioners have filed a representation before the Collector, Balaghat on 19.06.2012, but no action thereon has been taken till dat...
Hari Ram Kachhawaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9161/2012 (H.R.Kachhwaha versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 09.07.2012 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the letters being written by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal Welfare Dindori and the Collector, Dindori in respect of the difficulties being faced by the petitioner on account of the alleged misconduct being committed by one Arvind Burman, Assistant Grade II are not being looked into by the authorities. It is prayed that the aforesaid authorities be directed to look into the matter. 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 files a fresh complaint/representation alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days before respondent No.2 Collector, Dindori and re...
Smt. Manisha JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.8456/2012 09/07/2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the show cause notice dated 30.5.2012 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated and appointment cancelled, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Patwari and pointing out various irregularities in his appointment, a show cause notice has been issued to him. Challenging the show cause notice, petitioner has rushed to this Court. When the question was posted to the petitioner as to why the show cause notice is challenged, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will be required to file reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, challenge the action again, therefore, to circumvent all these positions, this writ petition is filed. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, he is required to submit reply to the sho...
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9265/2012 09/07/2012 Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is entitled to consideration of his case for re-engagement in accordance with circular dated 21.1.2004 but this Court has held in a series of cases that not after the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1.the benefit of circular dated 21 st of January, 2004 cannot be granted and the petitioner can only claim the benefit in the light of the subsequent circulars issued in the light of the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra).Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under similar circumstances, certain directions have been issued in W.P.No.21125/2011 vide order dated 23.1.2012. Learned counsel for the State points out that the aforesaid judgment is issued without taking note of the law laid down in the ca...
Abdul Sattar Vs. Laxman Pd. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.610/1995 Abdul Sattar................................................ Appellant Versus Laxman Prasad and others.......................... Respondents For the appellant : Shri R.K.Thakur, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Ajay Raizada, Advocate No.1 & 2 ========================== Present: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Alok Aradhe ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (09.07.2012) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant who has lost in both the courts. This Court vide order dated 02.11.1995 while admitting the appeal had formulated following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below were justified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs on the strength of the easementary right when the proper pleadings regarding easement and user were not there?.2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of t...
Shiv Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9186/12 (S.P.Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.09.07.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the Police authorities on the complaint filed by him. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.2 to 4/police authorities to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. To enable the respondents No.2 to 4/police authorities to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served on them by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions the petition, filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ku. Babita Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9836/12 (Ku. Babita Mehra versus The State of MP and otheRs.09.07.2012 Heard Shri Vishal Mhaski, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the Police authorities on the complaint filed by her. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/the Superintendent of Police, Betul to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law. To enable the respondents No.2 to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served on him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions the petition, filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Sohan Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9381/2012 09/07/2012 Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak to the Panchayats. As per the scheme for appointment, the appointment is made after a resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayat and the same is approved by the Collector cum District Program Coordinator. Against the order of appointment to the post in the Panchayat, petitioner has remedy of an appeal as contemplated under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995. If the appointment is made on due approval of the Collector, the would appeal go to the Commissioner. When a statutory appeal is available under the Act of 1995, a writ petition directly before this Court bypassing the statutory remedy is not permissible. That apart, the scheme for appointment itself under Cl...
Ku. Kshama Bhagat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.8490/2012 09/07/2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the show cause notice dated 30.5.2012 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated and appointment cancelled, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Patwari and pointing out various irregularities in his appointment, a show cause notice has been issued to him. Challenging the show cause notice, petitioner has rushed to this Court. When the question was posted to the petitioner as to why the show cause notice is challenged, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will be required to file reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, challenge the action again, therefore, to circumvent all these positions, this writ petition is filed. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, he is required to submit reply to the sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- Next ›
- Last »