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.
Tularam S/O Rajram (Dead) Th:lrs, Kamla Bai Vs. Mohd. Shareef
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10020/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Surendra Patel, Advocate for the petitioneRs.He is heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.5.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashta, District Sehore whereby it has been directed to the petitioners to deposit the Court fee for the enhanced amount of compensation as directed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No.1611/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order passed by this Court on 13.12.2011 in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal, the petitioners filed an application to accept the Court fee but the same has been rejected and, therefore, learned Tribunal be directed to allow the application and the Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation be accepted. Considered the submission. On bare perusal of the order impugned dated 29.5.2012, it is gathered that at the threshold the application has been rejected mentioning that there is no ...
Dr. Kirti Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
Dr. Kirti Thakre versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11932/2012 06/08/2012 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondents. With consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is posted as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Betul has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.7.2012 by which she has been transferred from Betul to Bhainsdehi which is sitate at a distance of 75 kilometres in the same district. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer has been passed with a view to accommodate Respondent No.3, who is wife of Dr. Raj Kamal Meshram. It is further submitted that Dr. Raj Kamal Meshram and his wife Dr. Chanchal Meshram namely Respondent No.3 have submitted applications for their transfer on request and in view of the requests made by Respondent No.3 and her husband, petitioner h...
Smt. Shantibai Chandel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10499/2012 (Smt. Shantibai Chandel versus State of M.P.and otheRs.06.08.2012 Heard Shri Nishant Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the respondents be directed to initiate further proceedings against the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Handia District Harda in view of the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, Harda in his order dated 22.05.2012. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files an appropriate application before the competent authority bringing to their notice the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, Harda dated 22.05. 2012 along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the authority concerned shall look into the matter and if necessary, decide the same expeditiously, in ...
Khusiyal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
6.8.2012 Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasia, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 26.5.2011 in connection with Crime No.111/2011 registered at P.S.Bhainsdehi, District Betul for the offence punishable under sections 302, 304-B, 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Initially the report of missing of deceased was lodged by the applicant. Father-in-law of the applicant also stated that deceased left the house of applicant in the fit of rage, thereafter she was found dead by drowning in a well, thereafter, a false and concocted report was lodged against the applicant. Despite the issuance of bailable warrant, complainant and his witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court. The applicant is in custody and trial...
Gram Panchayat Padua Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10831/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. They are heard. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing relief No.3 which reads thus: To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1/1/2011 passed by the Collector of Katni. This petition is accordingly dismissed as far as relief no.3 is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that this petition be disposed of by giving direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Katni to upgrade the Nistar Patra as envisaged under Section 234 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code since it has not been done for the last 40 yeaRs.This contention is accepted and this petition is disposed of by giving direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Katni to upgrade the Nistar Patra, if already not upgraded in accordance with the provisions contained in M.P.Land Revenue Code as per law as early as poss...
Ram Khilawan Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.12491 / 2012 (Ram Khilawan Vishwakarma...Vs...State of MP & otheRs.06-08-2012 Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by a show cause notice dated 11-7-2012 issued by the respondent/Municipal Council, Ajaygarh, District Panna under the provisions of Sections 223/187(8) and 307 of the M.P.Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not made any encroachment in spite of which the aforesaid notice has been issued and, therefore, the impugned notice dated 11-7-2012 be quashed. From a perusal of the petition it is noteworthy that previously another notice was issued to the petitioner on 2-2-2012 against which he has not filed any reply and thereafter the authorities have issued the second notice asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment w...
Smt.Vipta Kostha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10473/2012 06.08.2012 Shri M. Ahmed, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate for respondents. They are heard. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs:- i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 28.4.2010 and 14.2.12 passed by Addl. Collector Jabalpur and Addl. Commissioner Jabalpur contained in Annexure-P-6 and P-7 by issuance of appropriate writ direction order. ii) The Hon'ble Court be further pleased to hold that the proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 stood abated in view of Section 4 of Repeal Act of 1999. iii) Cost of the petition be awarded. iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit be awarded. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that matter was travelled to this Court earlier also in W.P.No.8024/2005 and this Court vide order dated 11.08.2005 disposed of the aforesaid petition ...
Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University) Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.8304/2012 (Dayalbagh Educational Institute versus State of MP and otheRs.06.08.2012 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Sr.counsel with Ms.Nidhi Verma, for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned G.A.for the State. Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Sr.counsel with Shri Harmeet Singh for the Board. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to grant equivalence recognition to the education programmes conducted by the deemed university situated in Agra, State of U.P.After arguing at length learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner claiming the aforesaid equivalence. In addition, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner be permitted to place all documents before the authorities for the purpose of enabling them to decide the matter. The learned Government Advocate for the...
Sunil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.6159/2012 & 6160/2012 (Sunil Kumar Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& Ors.) & Neeraj Kukreja & Ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.06.08.2012 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5. Shri Atul Nema learned counsel for respondent no.8. Shri Atul Chaudhary learned counsel for respondent no.9. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action taken by the railway police at Katni against the petitioneRs.As the issue involved is common and is the same, they are heard and decided concomitantly. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the Chief Vigilance Inspector/Vigilance Inspectors/Assistant Vigilance Officer of the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway, Jabalpur and while conducting inspection they also conducted inspection of respondent no.8. As the ...
Govind Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8648/2012 6/08/2012 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, 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 20/05/12 in connection with Crime No.17/12 registered at P.S.Prakash Bamhauri, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under section 304-B/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is father-in-law of deceased Pushpa Bai. It is further submitted that this applicant has strand relationship with his son Rampal, husband of deceased Pushpa Bai and in support of his submission, he filed Annexure P-2 , copy of complaint lodged against Rampal on 17/01/11 therefore, he could not be involved in the said offence. It is submitted that statement of witness Akhilesh was recorded after the long delay and if deceased Pushpa made an oral dying ...
- ‹ Prev
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- Next ›
- Last »