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.
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi Vs. Distt. Project Co-ordinator and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
W.P.No.5720/2002 05/07/2012 Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for Respondents/State. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6. Challenging the order Annexure-P4 dated 10.7.2002 by which the appointment of the petitioner as a Guruji in the School named Sukha Gudiyana under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme is suspended, petitioner had filed this writ petition. Even though after filing of this petition, the same has been revoked. However, as the respondents have filed a detailed reply and have said that the appointment of the petitioner is to be cancelled and as Respondent Nos.5 & 6 have also objected to the said appointment, matter has to be decided on merit. According to the petitioner, her name was duly registered in the employment exchange and in accordance with the procedure prescribed, she was appointed for the post of Guruji in the Centre in question in the year 2002, she joined and not as the order of her appointment...
Kishan Urf Ram Kishan Vs. Durga Mewada
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Cr.R.No.1880/11 5.7.2012 Shri Ashok Kostha , Advocate for the applicant. Shri Y.M.Tiwari , Advocate for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.4190/12 an application for dismissal of revision petition. This application filed by respondent on the ground that through this revision order dated 23.8.2011 of Family Court Bhopal in MJ.52/09 was sought to be quashed has been challenged. Revision can not lie against interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that revision is maintainable but he has not shown that impugned order is final. The impugned order is passed on the application u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C.No recovery can be made beyond the period of one year. The legal position can be raised before the trial Court at present no interference is called for. This revision is not maintainable. The revision petition is disposed of . MJ.be sent back to trial Court. (MA Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Smt. Lad Kumar Kori Vs. Arya Lalaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1 W.A.No.287/2011 Smt.Lad Kumar Kori Arya Lalaram and others 5.7.2012 Shri Abhishek Arjaria, Counsel for appellant. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No.7818/2010 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed. The appellant herein had challenged the order dated 18.6.2010, Annexure P/4 of the writ petition passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, by which the Sub- Divisional Officer directed for re-counting of the votes in respect of the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chachavali, Janpad Niwadi, District Tikamgarh. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Election Tribunal framed two issues and findings in respect of Issue No.1 were recorded in favour of the appellant while Issue No.2 was decided against the appellant. It was submitted that the Sub- Divisional Officer had directed for recounting of ...
Sandeep Sahu Vs. Vijay Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
M.Cr.C.No.932/2011. 5/7/2012 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Mukesh Mishra, Adv.for the respondent. Arguments heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).for quashing of the proceedings, pending as Cri. Case No.6727/09 before Smt. Preeti Singh, JMFC, Bhopal, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In that case, cognizance of the offence, under Section 406 of the IPC, has been taken upon the complaint made by the respondent, the father of Rama (since dead).whose marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1, the son of other petitioneRs.at Village Gadasarai, Distt. Dindori. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to fiRs.advert to the relevant provision in the form of sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code, that reads 181. Place of trial in case of certain offences. (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried b...
Vimla Devi Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
05.07.2012. Shri Mrigendra Singh for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. Challenging the order-dated 13.9.2002, by which appointment of the petitioner as a daily wage employee has been terminated, petitioner has filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner she belongs to the scheduled caste category and on the basis of an application submitted by her she was appointed by the Principal, Polytechnic College Waidhan, initially for a period of 89 days vide order-dated 4.7.2001. The service initially for 89 days was extended on 15.10.2001, 27.12.2001, 3.4.2002 and 29.6.2002 and while the process of considering her case for regularization was pending, the impugned action is taken. Interalia contending that petitioner had submitted an application alongwith various other persons for appointment and after due scrutiny of her application she has been appointed by the Principal, and not her termination when the process of regularization is...
Rudra Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Distt.Co-ordinator, R.G.S.M.Panna and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
W.P.No.4818/2002 05/07/2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for Respondent No.1. Challenging the order passed by the Sarpanch on 9.8.2002 terminating the services of the petitioners in accordance with directions issued by Respondent No.3, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Both the petitioners were appointed as Guruji and joined the posts in the year 1999. Both the petitioenrs have started working in pursuance to the order Annexure-P1. It is the grievance of the petitioners that while they were so working, the District Coordinator directed the Sarpanch to terminate the services of the petitioners and, therefore, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. It is pointed out that before terminating the services of the petitioners after a period of two yeaRs.neither any show cause notice is issued to the petitioners not opportunity of hearing was granted to them. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel points out that terminat...
ifci Limited Vs. the Chairman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1 W.A.No.690/2012 IFCI Limited The Chairman, Centre for Entrepreneur- ship Development & others 5.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri S.S.Chauhan, Shri Dinkar Singh and Shri Saurabh Sunder, Counsel for appellant. Smt.Shobha Menon, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Choubey, Counsel for respondents No.1,2 & 4. Both parties have assailed the impugned order though on different footings by filing separate appeals. Considering the grievance raised by the parties, we find that the appellant has made out a case for admission of this appeal. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. It is submitted by Shri Singh, learned senior advocate that looking to the serious controveRs.involved in the case, the matter may be heard at an early date. Prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No.1,2 & 4. Be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.A.No.799/2012 on 30.8.2012, as agreed by the parties. In the meantime, the appellant shall take steps/repeated...
Kungilal Vs. Ramkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Cr.R.No.233/12 5.7.2012 Shri R.P.Prajapati, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.2/State. Heard finally at motion stage. This criminal revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C.has been filed to quash the judgment and findings dated 18.5.2011 passed in Criminal case no.1267/2010 by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Narsinghpur which has been confirmed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Cri. Appeal No.90/2011 vide judgment dated 7.1.2012 on the ground that both the courts below have erred in appreciating and marshalling the evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement of Kunjilal (PW 1.was supported by Dhanpat Singh (PW 2).Dharam Lal (PW 3.and Rajesh (PW 4.together with medical evidence. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no.1 submit that both the courts below have passed the judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was contradictions in the statements of e...
Smt.Amatul Rashid Vs. Smt.Amatul Jalil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA SECOND APPEAL NO.1069/2006 Smt. Amatul Rashid -VERSUS- Smt. Amatul Jalil and 3 others ................................................................................................. Shri Manish Jain, counsel for the appellant. .................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 5th day of July, 2013) The appellant claimed her right of pre emption over the property bearing Survey Nos.126/1, 126/3, 146/2 bearing areas 1.55 hectare, 0.94 hectare and 0.02 hectare respectively, total area 2.52 hectare situated at Village Dorli, Chhatarpur, Tahsil Seoni by way of a Civil Suit No.5-A of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Seoni vide judgment and decree dated 30/6/2005. In Civil Appeal No.121-A of 2005 the learned District Judge, Seoni vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the ...
Jemini Bhargava Vs. Smt. Pranjali Parashar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1141/12 05.07.2012. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard finally. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to set aside Order dated 1.6.12 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal by which request of petitioner to appear through power of attorney holder and permission to represent by a counsel has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the given date, i.e., 26.6.12, petitioner who is working in a foreign country (Australia).could not appear so Court has proceeded ex parte and not case has been fixed for ex-parte evidence on 17.7.12. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application has been rejected mainly on the ground 2 that reconciliation is must and without personal appearance no reconciliation can be made. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no hope of compromise and his party is not willing to do any compromise. He submits that respondent/wife is not entitled...
- ‹ Prev
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Next ›
- Last »