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.
Dr.Vijaya Laxmi Choubey Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.8983/2006 Dr. Vijaya Laxmi Choubey and others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and others. Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Kishore Shrivastava Senior. advocate with Shri Kapil Jain, advocate. For the respondent/ Corporation : Shri Anshuman Singh, advocate. For the respondent/ State : Shri S.S. Bisen, G.A. For respondents No.6 to 18 : Shri Girish Shrivastava, Advocate. ORDER (03.08.2012) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.06.2006 passed by the Building Officer, respondent No.5, under section 307 (3) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment made by them by constructing the boundary wall on the area reserved for a park.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are the owners of the area admeasuring 1950 Sq. Ft. situated near the old diversion 2 plot No.13, Mouza Katanga, J...
Ramkalesh Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 W.P.No.11401/2012 Ramkalesh Saket versus State of M.P.& ORS.03.08.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Verma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.7.2012 by which he has been transferred from Primary Health Centre Sarai, Community Health Centre, Rampur Baghelan to Primary Health Centre, Parasmaniya, Community Health Centre, Unchhehra, on the ground that the transfer is in violation of the policy of the State Government which requires and provides that as far as possible husband and wife should be posted together. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.passed in W.A No.1131/2007, has already held and decided that in cases of breach of transfer policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authorities themselves in accordance with Clause 15 of the transfer policy, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the ...
Ramaparise Vs. Zila Panchayat of District Betul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 MCC No.856/2012 03.08.2012 Shri P.N.Das, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.16415/2007 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 28.06.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant was medically indisposed and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2012 passed in W.P No.16415/2007 is recalled and is directed t...
Smt. Seema Saket Vs. Sukhlal Saket
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
FIRs.APPEAL No.739/2012 03.08.2012 Shri R.K.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that before the Court below, no efforts were made for reconciliation between the parties while the aforesaid provision is mandatory in nature. Considering the aforesaid, we admit this appeal for hearing. Looking to the controveRs.involved in this case, we direct both the parties to appear before this Court personally on 17th September, 2012 for reconciliation proceedings. For the said purpose, notice be issued to the respondent for personal appearance on the aforesaid date. Steps within a period of one week by R.A.D.I.A.No.8194/2012 for interim injunction. Issue notice of this application to the other side. Steps within 3 working days by R.A.D.Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondent shall not contract another marriage without seeking prior permission of this Court. Appellant to serve this ex-parte interim order on the respondent as is requ...
Jasan Das Vs. Babu Lal Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 MCC No.991/07 3.8.2012 This application has been placed before this Court in view of the latter of request of the 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Shahdol dated 17.11.2007 by which he had sought additional time for deciding the case i.e.Civil Suit No.73A/2006- Babulal versus Jasandas. By order dated 22.6.2012, the Registry was directed to ascertain the present status of the case and status report dated 7.7.2012 has been received by this Court by which it reveals that because of filing of various applications by the parties, hearing of the case is being delayed. Considering aforesaid, further three months time is allowed to the trial Court to decide the matter finally. However, the trial Court shall proceed in the matter day to day basis. With the aforesaid directions, this MCC is disposed of finally. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court for compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge C....
Ojharam Evane Vs. Jyoti Dhurve
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 E.P.No.46/09 3.8.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sharma submits that he has moved an application today I.A.No.45/2012 for summoning additional witness. Learned counsel for respondent prays for short time to file reply of this application. By this application, petitioner wants to examine one Mahadeo S/o Dashrath, the alleged father of respondent No.1, which prayer is seriously opposed by the respondent. Except petitioner, no other witness is present and considering the evidence which is to be produced in this case, it would be appropriate, if the petitioner is examined alongwith aforesaid witness. In aforesaid circumstances, hearing of this petition is adjourned for 17.8.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge C....
Guddu @ Raghvendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
Cr.R.No.2119/11 03.08.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar,Adv.for applicants. Shri Akshya Namdeo, Panel Lawyer, for respondent/State. This petition has already been admitted on 17.7.2012. Heard on I.A.No.15473/12 an application for stay further proceedings pending in S.T.No.28/2010 before Additional Sessions Judge Begamganj district Raisen. The allegation against the applicants is that they used filthy language and tried to beat deceased Raju Singh on 22.10.2009 and afterwards in the night he committed suicide at 10 p.m.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no ingredients of section 107 or S. 306 IPC is made out against the applicants as there is no instigation or abetment in the terms of Sec. 107 of IPC is available and trial is going on. He also placed reliance on Babi @ Jitendra and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008(2) MPHT 16 and M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011).SCC 62.and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andrapradeh (2010).SCC 750. Loo...
Sukhdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
W.P.No.11435/2012 (Sukhdeo versus State of MP and otheRs.03.08.2012 Heard Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the S.D.O., Betul whereby he has been removed from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short the Act.).It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been given proper opportunity of hearing before being removed. Relying upon several decisions of this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and deserves to be remanded to the S.D.O.for decision afresh. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as provisions of section 40 of the Act which only provides giving opportunity to show cause to the person under ...
Smt. Chaitali Bhagat Vs. Dipesh Bhagat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
....1 F.A.No.727 o03. 08.2012 Shri R.D.Hundikar, Counsel for the appellant. After hearing the arguments it appears that because of trifle matteRs.both the appellant and respondent are residing separately and the matter can be sorted out if it is referred for mediation. Accordingly, we direct both the parties to appear before this Court on 10th September,2012 so that the matter can be referred for mediation. Issue notice to the respondent to cause personal appearance before this Court on the next date of hearing. P.F.be paid within three working days by Reregisterd AD mode. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge Judge vj...
Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
R.P.No.569/2012 (Satyanarayan Sharma versus State of MP and otheRs.03.08.2012 Shri M.L.Shrama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Rai, learned P.L.for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this application for review alleging that while the respondents have taken action against some respondents, they have not taken any action against the respondent No.6. Be that as it may, as the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court which had been disposed of in view of the stand of the respondents that investigation is complete and the challan is going to be filed against them before the competent court. In such circumstances, the petitioner would have a remedy to file an application before the competent court for mitigation of his grievances. I do not find any reason to entertain the present review which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- Next ›
- Last »