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.
Chandra Bhan Singh and ors. Vs. Ganpat Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR S.A No.560/1999 Chandrabhan Singh S/o Gulab Singh and another ........Appellants VERSUS Ganpat Singh S/o Gulab Singh and Others ...............Respondents ======== For the appellants:Shri S.Kochar with Shri Vikas Tiwari, Advocate For the respondents No.1 to 3:Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate Present :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (05-07-2012) This appeal has been preferred by the defendants No.1 and 2. This court vide order dated 19-09-2005, while admitting the appeal had framed the following substantial questions of law :-1. Whether the findings of the appellate Court that Bua of Devi Singh married to Mathura is perverse and is based on surmises and conjunctures and the plaintiff without disclosing name of Bua have pleaded her marriage with Mathura which finding cannot be accepted in the absence of proper pleadings and evidence?.2. Whether the plaintiffs who are successor of Mathura Singh are entitled to succeed property of Devi Sin...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Komal Prasad Rajoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
R.P.No.13/2012 5.7.2012 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for applicant- State. Shri Girish Kekre, learned counsel for the respondent. Seeking review/ recall of an order passed by this Court on 16.2.2010 passed in W.P.No.9443/2008(s).this review petition has been filed by the State Government along with the affidavit of one Dr.K.K. Mishra, Superintendent and District Ayurvedic Officer, Narsinghpur. Petitioner in the original writ petition claims that he was initially appointed in a Dispensary run by the Janpad Panchayat. He was discharging the duties of Assistant Vaidya and after abolition of the dispensary as per the policy decision of the State Government, the dispensary was taken over by the State Government and petitioner's services should have been absorbed. As nothing was done and petitioner's services was terminated, matter came up before this Court in various writ petitions and finally on 16.2.2010 in W.P.No.9443/2008 (s) this Court found that in the case of the petitioner ...
The Chairman, Centre for Interpreneurship Development, Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
W.A.No.799/2012 5.7.2012 Smt.Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, counsel for appellants. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S.S.Chouhan, Shri Dinkar Singh and Shri Sourabh Sunder, counsel for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2, though copy of the appeal memo has already been served on the counsel, who had appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 before the Single Bench. This appeal is barred by limitation. Office has raised an objection in this regard. It is not in dispute that no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in the matter. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that an application shall be filed during the couRs.of the day seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. As another appeal filed by the respondent no.1 has been admitted today, we find it appropriate to allow an opportunity to the appellants to move an application seeking condonation of delay and for this purpose, we allow three days time to th...
Dhaneshwar Das Aandhrawan Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
05.07.2012. Shri S.K.Garg for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/respondents 1 to 3. Shri N.S.Ruprah for respondent No.4. Petitioner is an employee of respondent No.4s establishment. The establishment of respondent No.4 is a Society registered under the MP Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Petitioners grievance is that his services have been terminated illegally on 18.11.1991. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the effect that petitioner has statutory remedy of raising a dispute under section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. From the return filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is seen that after his termination petitioner preferred an application before the competent authority namely respondent No.3, but as the said application was not submitted in the proper form and as requisite court-fees was not paid, vide Annexure R/1 respondent No.3 direc...
Sheshrao Koshe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.7217/2012 Sheshrao Koshe State of M.P.& others 4.7.2012 Shri Sunil Verma, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 6. Nothing is brought on record to show that any efforts were made by the respondents to produce corpus of Ku.Poonam Koshe, minot daughter of petitioner in spite of our order dated 24.5.2012 and 18.6.2012. Even no progress report in the matter has been filed justifying the action taken by the respondents for the production of Ku.Poonam Koshe, daughter of the petitioner for a period of nearabout 1 months. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct respondent no.3, 4, 5 & 6 to produce the corpus of Ku.Poonam Koshe, before this Court on the next date of hearing and in case of failure, respondent no.3 shall file his affidavit justifying the efforts made by the Police towards production of corpus of Ku.Poonam Koshe, before this Court. Be listed for hearing on 18.7.2012. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Vijay Pandey, learned...
Nandkishore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P. No. 8356/2012 4.7.2012 Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal whereby an appeal under Section 78 (1) M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 38 has been allowed and an order passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 18 A of 1960 Act has been set aside; whereby, the Registration of the respondents as Society was cancelled. That, against the registration of respondent No. 5 as Harijan Machua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit vide order dated 28.5.2009, the petitioner, who claims himself to be a member of one proposed Machua Sahkari Samiti, filed a complaint before Deputy Registrar Sehore, that 8 out of 21 members of respondent No. 5 Society were fake and their name has been added against their wishes and consent. The complaint was on...
Kalabai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 W.P.No.8916/2012 Kala Bai versus State of M.P.& ORS.04.06.2012 Heard Shri Pratush Tripathi 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 the petitioner. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to take up proceedings available to him under the CrPC. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to him in law, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Smt. Gayabai Vs. Sub Divisional Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.2303/2007(s) 04/07/2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the Respondent/State. Challenging an award dated 26 th of October, 2006 passed by the labour court No.1 Bhopal as contained in Annexure-P1 refusing to pay back-wages to the petitioner and only directing for petitioner's re-engagement, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was appointed and was working in the establishment of the State Government and on the ground that the petitioner has completed 30 years of service, she was retired. Inter-alia contending that the petitioner is a Gangman and is entitled to work upto the age of 62 years and retirement after 30 years of service is illegal, a dispute was raised and the same was adjudicated in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the action of the labour court in only directing for re-engagement of the petitioner till the age of 62 yeaRs.but refusing to pay back-wages for the intervenin...
General Manager Narmada Hydro Electric Development Corporation Vs. Smt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1 F.A.No.607/2012 General Manager (R&R) Smt.Meena Bai & others 4.7.2012 Shri Saurabh Sunder, Counsel for appellant. Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.2,3 & 4. I.A.No.7066/2012 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee of Rs.96,741/-. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 22.6.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Kamlesh Mishra and on behalf of respondents No.2,3 & 4 by Shri Pandey, Dy.AG. I.A.No.6783 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also fu...
Jeevan Lal Rathor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.8811/2012 (Jeevanlal Rathore versus State of M.P.& ors.) 04.07.2012 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.4 and 5 regarding deliberate non-release of sanctioned amount under the Kapildhara Scheme. It is submitted that inspite of several representations as well as the direction from the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-3, dated 07.04.2012, no action has been taken against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 till date, and therefore, they be directed to take up the complaint of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the complaint shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In the circumstances, without entering into the me...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »