Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Babulal Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
Babulal Pathak versus State of MP and others W.P.No.6545/2007 07/08/2012 Shri Bhoop Singh, learned counsel along with the petitioner Shri Babulal Pathak in person. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. This petition is listed today for final hearing but hearing in the matter is not possible and the case has to be adjourned. The question, therefore, is as to whether the case should be adjourned merely on the asking of learned counsel for the State or a compensatory cost should also be imposed for grant of adjournment. The petitioner Shri Babulal Pathak is more than 75 years of age, he is deaf and he had filed this writ petition in the year 2007 seeking counting of the service rendered by him in the Janpad Panchayat for grant of pensionary benefits. Records indicate that this writ petition was filed on 16.5.2007, notices were issued on 19.11.2008 and, thereafter, on 26.11.2008 and on 9.2.2009, ...
M/S Anant Pre-fab Constructors Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
W.P.No.10530/2012 07.08.2012 Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate appears for respondent No.1 on caveat application. Heard on the question of admission. Since respondent No.1 is already represented, no notice is required to be sent. Let notice be issued to respondent No.2 on payment of process fee by today. Service be made by registered AD post as well as ordinary mode and also by dasti service. List in the next week. Till then, respondent no.1 shall not take any coercive step in pursuant to order dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure-P/5) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure-P/11) passed by respondent No.2. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K.Shrivastava) JUDGE. SS...
Smt. Mamta Singh Vs. Dr. Shivashray Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 F.A.No.331/2011 Smt.Mamta Singh & another Dr.Shivashray Singh 7.8.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Counsel for appellants. Shri V.K.Shukla with Shri R.K.Tiwari, Counsel for respondent. It is submitted by the respondent that the matter has been settled between the appellants and the respondent who happen to be members of one family. Learned counsel for appellants also submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and the appellants be permitted to withdraw this appeal because of the compromise. Prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the compromise arrived at out of the Court, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sunder Lal Mehra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 WRIT APPEAL No.73/2011 WRIT APPEAL No.78/2011 WRIT APPEAL No.85/2010 WRIT APPEAL No.309/2011 07.08.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that case of the respondent for grant of increments without passing the typing examination, which was a condition in the appointment order, has been decided on the basis of a single Bench judgment in Dongar Singh Pawar versus State of M.P.& otheRs.2006(3) M.P.H.T.352 and the writ petition was allowed directing the State to give the increments to the respondent. It was submitted by Shri Jaideep Singh that the judgment of Dongar Singh Pawar (supra) was overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others versus Vinot Mohan Shrivastava, I.L.R.2008 MP 1869. Earlier also similar view was taken by another Division Bench in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Smt. Sushma Surana, 2005(II) MPW...
Sanjay Rodge Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
7.8.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.278/2012 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. The engagement of applicant No.1 Sanjay son of applicant Nos.2 and 3 was performed with Varsha D/o Shyamdeo Dongre on 9.4.2012, thereafter, applicant No.1 received an anonymous letter, in which it was written that Varsha is suffering from certain disease and she is taking treatment by Dr. Pardhi. On the basis of aforesaid letter, when the applicants asked the father of Varsha for her blood...
Rajendra Prasad Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.1908/2003) Rajendra Prasad Verma Vs. Union of India and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri R.B. Dubey, Advocate Counsel for Respondents Shri Gourav Dubey, Advocate O R D E R (7/8/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Being unsuccessful in seeking direction from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur for correction of seniority and a regular promotion as Chief Commercial Inspector in Grade Rs.20003200 (RPS) with effect from 1.3.1993, the petitioner has filed this petition; whereby, besides quashment of the order dated 18.7.2002 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner seeks direction to respondents to grant him the seniority above respondent No. 3, in the Commercial cadre and promotion as Chief Commercial Inspector in grade Rs.20003200 w.e.f 1.3.1993 i...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 W.A.No.164/2010 Abdul Rashid & others State of M.P.& another 7.8.2012 None for appellants. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Counsel for respondent No.2. It is submitted by Shri Bhatnagar that in view of the land acquired by the appellants, a composite lease-deed comprising four plots was executed in the name of Smt.Zahida Bi, the nominee of the appellants and the aforesaid was the consideration of the land acquired by the appellants. Stating aforesaid, it was submitted that in the light of the settlement, nothing survives in this appeal. Respondent No.2 has also filed copy of the lease-deed as Annexure IA/1 alongwith I.A.No.6994/2012 on record. As none is appearing for appellants, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
Nagar Palika Nigam, Sagar Vs. Dr.M.H. Khan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :10706. Of 2004 Nagar Palika Nigam Sagar V/s Dr. M.H. Khan & Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 7.8.2012 Challenging an award passed by the Labour Court Sagar in a reference made under Section 10 r/w 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 this writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation.2. The award in question is dated 16.4.2004 and is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition, by the said award the labour court has held that respondent Dr. M.H. Khan be regularized as Homeopathy Doctor and all consequential benefit be granted to him. Facts that has come on record indicates that Dr. Khan was appointed as a...
Manakchand Ruthia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
MCC No.773/2012 07.08.2012 Shri Amit Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rohini Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. By inviting my attention to Rule 8 of Chapter 8 learned counsel for the applicant submits that since he was the counsel in the writ petition, therefore, there is no necessity to file fresh Vakalatnama and filing of memo would suffice. Default as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored. Heard on the question of admission. By order dated 26.6.2012 passed by this Court W.P.No.3301/2006 was dismissed for want of prosecution. For the reasons stated in the restoration application, the same is hereby allowed and W.P.No.3301/2006 which was dismissed in default is hereby restored to its original number. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of W.P.No.3301/2006. This MCC is accordingly allowed and disposed of. {A.K.Shrivastava} Judge sach....
Bhavesh Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 6466/2012 7.8.2012 Shri Mradul K. Vishwakarma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, G.A. for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.789/2011 registered at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. It is alleged that when the applicant has given his photographs and ID proof for opening the account in HDFC Bank but his mother was unwell at that time, therefore he could not appear before the concerning bank. The other coaccused has misused his photographs in processing the loan application and loan has been sanctioned in the name of one Suresh S/o Harihar Sitoke. He further submits that similarly placed coaccuse...
- ‹ Prev
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- Next ›
- Last »