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.
Sarthak Shrivastava Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishva Vidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.NO.13145/2012 01-08-2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent/University. The petitioner was a student, who was pursuing the couRs.in B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) from Department of Law, Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur. Initially the petitioner was admitted to B.S.L.LL.B.CouRs.in the year 2007 in the University of Pune , later on by way of migration he was admitted in the second year, 4th semester in Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya. After seeking admission in Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, petitioner appeared in the 2nd and 4th semester. The petitioner was declared pass in the second semester and A.T.K.T.In 4th semester.However, in between in the 3rd and 5th semester examination, even though the petitioner cleared 5th semester examination but did not clear 3rd semester examination. Accordingly, when 6th semester examination was being held , the petitioner was deprived from appearing and his exami...
ismaile Sa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.10673/2012 Ismaile Sa versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.08.2012 Shri Nitin Karan learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. As per directions issued by this Court, respondent no.4 Shri Mangal Singh, Town Inspector, Police Station Chhapara, District Seoni, has produced respondent no.6 Praveen Bano before this Court as it is alleged by the petitioner that he has entered into wedlock with respondent no.6 who is being forcefully kept in custody by her parents against her wishes. Respondent no.6 Praveen Bano who is present in person, on being asked, specifically states that she has not entered into marriage with the petitioner and that she wishes to stay with her parents from whose custody she has been produced before this Court. In view of the statement of respondent no.6, the writ as prayed for by the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby rejected. The petition, filed by the petitioner, is accordingly dismissed. ( R.S....
Smt. Deepmala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.11079 / 2012 (Smt. Deepmala ...Vs...State of M.P.& ors.) 01-08-2012 Heard Shri Atul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to register a FiRs.Information Report against the respondents No.5, 6 and 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 324 of the I.P.C.and take suitable action against them. The Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 54.has categorically laid down that the remedy of petitioner in such circumstances is to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure as specified therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings under the provisions ...
Ramkalesh Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.14001 / 2012 (P.K.Shrivastava...Vs...MP State Electricity Board & two otheRs.01-08-2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 17-9-2010 whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service by the respondent/authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have constituted a Representation Committee for the purposes of considering all representations filed by the employees who have been compulsorily retired. It is stated that though the previous representation filed by the petitioner before the Representation Committee has been rejected by order dated 4-1-2011 on the sole ground that the petitioner has completed 20 years of service and, therefore, his case, in case he files a fresh representation shall be scrutinized again and all other issues sought to be raised ...
Laxmi Narayan Sahu Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.515/2012 01.08.2012 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. At the outset appellants' counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.5828/12, an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC as not pressed with liberty to file fresh application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad interim injunction against the respondents. Considering the aforesaid prayer, the IA is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid. On filing the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC the case be placed before the Court. On payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice of aforesaid admission, returnable by fixing a date in the week commencing 24.9.2012 be issued to the respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let the record of the trial court be requisitioned positi...
Dr.Ram Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Dr.Ram Kumar songiversus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.11704/ 2012 (s) 1.8.2012: Shri Yogendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Similar petition filed by the Ayurved Medical Officer have been disposed of vide order passed on 29.3.2012 in W.P.No.4603/2012 in the following manner : Petitioner has filed this petition claiming continuation of employment up to the age of 65 years in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sewak (AdhivarshikiAyu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 as amended by notification dated 06.05.2011. It is said that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Medico Legal Institute (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 attached to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, therefore, he is entitled to continue up to the age of 65 yeaRs. The action taken by the respondents to retire him upon ...
Suresh Kumar Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.10267/2012 Suresh Kumar Malviya versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.08.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 Director General of Police, Bhopal to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 29.3.2012 wherein he has sought justice as well as taking proper action in accordance with law against other accused. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to look into the representation filed by the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. To enable the authority to do so, a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be served on him by the petitioner. ...
Kissu @ Krishan Giri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8604/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Surendra Rajak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, P.P.for the respondent/State. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is 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 6/04/12 in connection with Crime No.97/12 registered at P.S.Kevlari, District Seoni for the offence punishable under sections 420, 506 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 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 facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the gravity of offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. There...
Kanhaiyalal and anr. Vs. Dharamdas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A. No.259 of 1995 01.08.2012: Shri J.L. Soni, Advocate for the appellants. Heard on I.A. No.7132/2012, I.A. No.7133/2012 and I.A. No.7134/2012, which are the applications under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, Section 5 of Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for substitution of LRs of appellant no.2, for condonation of delay and also for setting aside of the abatement. It is stated that in the present case Shri G.C. Jain was the counsel engaged, who has passed away, however, on issuance of SPC to the appellant no.1 Shri J.L. Soni has now been engaged. In such circumstances he has filed the aforesaid applications, therefore, the delay to file the application for substitution is based on bona fides, which may be condoned and abatement, if any, may be set aside. It is further submitted that the substitution of LRs of the appellant no.2 may be made in the aforesaid circumstances. After hearin...
Smt. Savita Jatav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.10249/2012 (Smt. Savita Jatav versus State of M.P.& ors.) 01.08.2012 Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted liberty to assail the impugned order before the State Govt./Minister in accordance with the provisions of the rules. It is, however, observed that in case the petitioner files such a revision before the State Govt./Minister within fifteen days claiming the same alongwith a copy of the order passed and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the revision of the petitioner and also pass orders on the interim application filed by him as early as possible. With the aforesaid observation/liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
- ‹ Prev
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- Next ›
- Last »