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.
Smt. Rahmat Bee Vs. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahangeer Kha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.2639/2010 06.08.2012 Shri P.K.Jain, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Hitendra Vishwakarma, Advocate for respondent. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/tenants are challenging the validity of impugned order dated 27.01.2010 by which learned Trial Court has struck of the defence of tenants/defendants/petitioners under Section 13(6) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short Act.).Shri Jain, learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no default in depositing the monthly rent. On the contrary, the rent is being deposited in advance. However, this position is disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent/landlord. On being asked whether any chart showing the date and period of deposit of rent has been submitted by them, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that they have not submitted any such chart. The chart submitted alongwith the record does not reveal when the rent upto what date has...
Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.A.No.883.12 Writ Appeal No.883 of 2012 (V i r e n d r a K u m a r M i s h r a Vs . S t a t e o f M . P . a n d th r e e o th e r s ) 06/08/2012 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents/State on advance notice. This Intra Court Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 25-07-2012 passed in Writ Petition No.11281/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Barhula to Gram Panchayat Kuthila. Writ petition was directed against the order dated 13-07-2012 whereby the petitioner/appellant, a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Barhula has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Kuthila. The transfer as apparent from the order is in furtherance to the decision taken by the State Government vide its order not F-1-6/2011/2...
Tomar Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
Tomar Prasad. versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11890/2012 06/08/2012 Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Daily Wages Employee has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.7.2012 by which he has been transferred from Balaghat to Katangi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 662 the services of a Daily Wages Employee are not transferable. The aforesaid preposition of law is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Tiwari versus M.P.Text Book Corporation and another 2010 (2) MPLJ 662 the impugned order of transfer dated 10.7.2012 in so far as it pertains to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The writ petiti...
Santosh Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
6.8.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Admit. Heard on I.A.No.14810/2012, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.12/12 registered at P.S.Mahila Thana, District Rewa for the offence punishable under sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He works as Constable in Railway Protection Force. Its a matrimonial matter. In the event of arrest chances of compromise between the parties, if any, will be diminished and service of the applicant will also be affected, therefore, he be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to ...
Sanjay Gupta @ Singraha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Home Departme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10777/2012 06.08.2012 Shri M.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. They are heard. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 20.1.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Rewa in Criminal Case No.25/2011 which has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.6.2012 passed in Case No.41/Appeal/2011-12. By the impugned order an order of externment has been passed by the District Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. The only contention which has been put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that some criminal cases are pending against the petitioner in Rewa and therefore, in order to attend the relevant dates he may be permitted to attend the criminal cases otherwise in his absence adveRs.judgment may be passed. This contention appears to be reasonable and therefore,...
Sudesh (Swadesh) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6864/2012 6/08/2012 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 10/05/12 in connection with Crime No.514/12 registered at P.S.Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that applicant is not the main accused. The only allegation made against him is that he allured the complainant Laxman Singh to deliver the money from co-accused person for the purpose of his treatment. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall ...
Akkriti Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.11310/2011 (Akkriti Kumar versus State of MP and otheRs.06.08.2012 Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the Board. The learned counsel for the respondent/Board submits that there is no provision for revaluation, however, the petitioner, if so advised, may apply for obtaining the answer sheets to examine them. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent/Board, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner applies for obtaining answer sheets, the respondents shall supply the answer sheets to her and thereafter she may go through the same and thereafter the petitioner may take up the proceedings, if any, available under the law. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ramesh Kumar Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
06.08.2012 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.618/2011 registered at P.S.Garha, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 30.8.2011. He has been falsely implicated in this case. This case is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is already broken. There is no direct evidence against the present applicant. There is also no eye witness in the case. Charge has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I a...
P.B.Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.A.No.793.12 Writ Appeal No.793 of 2012 (P . B . S o ni V s . S ta t e o f M a d hy a P ra d es h a n d t w o o t h e r s) 06/08/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. This Intra Court Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 19-06-2012 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition No.8653/2012(s) which in turn was directed against the order dated 14-06-2012 whereby the appellant/petitioner, a Senior Geo Hydrologist, posted in the office of Ground Water Survey, Jabalpur, was transferred to Bureau of Design, Water Resources Department, Bhopal. The transfer of the appellant/petitioner as apparent from the transfer order was in wake of departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner on 31-10-2011. The enquiry as stated at Bar is in respect of financial i...
Gulshan Begam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10914/2012 (Gulshan Begum versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police authorities are not looking into the grievances of the petitioner, which is pending since long. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Rewa to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
- ‹ Prev
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- Next ›
- Last »