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. Phoolan Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
31.7.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.14866/2012, which is an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.140/2012 registered at P.S.Naigarhi, District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in-law of deceased Premwati, who died after 30 years of her marriage. The applicant and her husband reside separately. A ration card has been filed in this regard. After the death of deceased, her parents have falsely implicated in the applicant and co-accused in this case. The applicant is a permanent resident of village Kot, thus, there is no possibility of her absconding. The applicant is 65 years old lady and is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the even...
Mohd. Habib Vs. Mohd. Safi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
M.Cr.C.No.902/2012 31/07/2012 Shri Rajesh Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with complaint case No.14038/2011 (old complaint case No.1263/05).registered at police station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this case arose from the private complaint wherein statement of complainant as well as his witnesses have been recorded u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C and they are yet to be cross examined therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for State opposes the application. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the...
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Shikhsha Mahavidyalaya Vs. Devi Ahilya Unive ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 17088/2010 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 ...
Rajeev Gandhi College, Raisen, M.P. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 4558/2012 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 ...
Gandhi P.R.College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 4570/2012 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 ...
Deepak Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.NO.11337/12 30-07-2012. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri T.K.Khadka for the respondent no.3. Petitioner is working as Patwari in Patwari Halka Waidhan-51, R.I.Circle Waidhan, District Singrauli. By the impugned order Annexure P-1, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka Tiyra in the same district and in his place respondent no.3 has been posted. Inter alia contending that respondent no.3 is son-in-law of a local MLA Shri Kedar Nath Shukla and therefore, he is granted adjustment by posting him in place of the petitioner due to influence of his father-in-law, the petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. It is pointed out that earlier also when the petitioner was being displaced by the respondent no.3, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P.No.10316/2011. On 01-07-2011 initially stay was granted and thereaft...
Shri Sunil Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Shri Sunil Pal versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11053/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rajmani Mishra , learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the Additional Commissioner Jabalpur, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, the revisional authority, Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the revision after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 Shri Sunil Pal versus State of MP and others...
Yogendra Kumar Dhimole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Yogendra Kumar Dhomole versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11052 / 2012 (s) 30.7.2012: Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector (Moharir) in Nagar Panchayat, Lakhnadon, by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 14.7.2012 he has been transferred to Nagar Palika, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur and challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground that claim of petitioner for absorption as Revenue Inspector is pending in Nagar Panchayat Lakhnadon and further on the ground that in Gadarwara only 8 posts are filled-up and, therefore, petitioner will not be permitted to join at Gadarwara, referring to communication in this regard made by the Chief Executive Officer Lakhnadaun, interference into the matter is sought for. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by petitioner, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits respondent Nos.1 & 2...
Ku. Supriya Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri Aseem Dixit for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Driver in the 4th Battalion, NCC, Katni and has been transferred from Katni to Chhatarpur. Interalia contending that due to his family problems petitioner has sought his transfer to Sagar and ignoring his request he is posted to Chhatarpur without there being any request for transfer to Chhatarpur, challenge is made to the impugned action. Records indicate that petitioner was transferred from Chhatarpur to Katni only in the year 2011 and not is being transferred to Chhatarpur. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, it is thought appropriate to direct the competent authority of the department to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a reasonable time, this writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON...
Smt. Nazneen Khan Vs. Lakhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA 270/2011 30.7.2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate for appellants. Smt.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent. I.A.No.4332/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent prays three weeks' time to file reply of this application. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent has already alienated part of the property on 8.6.2012 and the respondent may be restrained to alienate remaining part of the property till next date of hearing. Though prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent but considering facts of the case, we direct the respondent not to alienate any property without seeking prior permission of this Court till next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 3.9.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge amit...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »