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.
Santosh Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
WRIT APPEAL NO.882/2012 01.08.2012 Shri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. The transfer order Annx.P/1 has been assailed by the appellant on two grounds :- (i) That at Nagar Palika where the appellant has been transferred, there is only one post of Revenue Sub Inspector and one A Dubey, who has been transferred by the same order had already joined at Mandideep and there is no vacant post at Mandideep. (ii) That wife of the appellant is not well and the mother of the appellant is also old. So far as the fiRs.contention is concerned, we direct Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General to seek instructions from the respondent No.1 in respect of factual position at Nagar Palika Mandideep and to apprise this Court in this regard. Be listed for hearing on 6.8.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge A.Praj....
Sulkanbai and ors Vs. Merkulal and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.311/04. 1.8.2012. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel. With permission of the Court appellant's counsel has corrected the date of order stated in 4th line of fiRs.para of IA No.2137/12 whereby he mentioned the date 8.4.2006 at the place of 8.6.2004. The same is certified accordingly. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.2137/12, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record. As per averments of it, after passing away such respondent on 14.3.2006 initially proceeding to bring his legal representatives on record was filed before the executing Court in pending execution proceeding of the impugned money decree. Such application was allowed and legal representatives of such respondent were brought on record on 8.4.2006. In such premises, the present application is preferred without filing any supporting appl...
Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P. No. 11484/2012 1.8.2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 13.7.2012 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby petitioner, an Assistant Professor (English) in Higher Education Department has been transferred from Mahakoshal College, Jabalpur to Government College, Bijawar. Petitioner challenges the order on the ground that he has been transferred out of mala fides which is attributed to respondent No. 2, Additional Director, Higher Education. To substantiate the contentions the petitioner has placed reliance on communication dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure P2) and order dated 2.12.2011. By communication dated 29.9.2011 Additional Director (C.S) Higher Education Department called upon the petitioner to furnish information regarding his appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the State of Madhya Pradesh, his place of posting from initia...
Dwarika Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.10507/2012 (Dwarika Prasad Mishra versus State of M.P.& ors.) 01.08.2012 Heard Shri K. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner, who was dismissed from the post of Lower Division Clerk on account of his conviction in a criminal case, has subsequently been acquitted by the High Court on 28.09.2011 in criminal appeal no.2509/1998, inspite of which the respondents have not reinstated him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted several representations before the authorities who have also issued instructions to the Chief Engineer, Ganga Kachar, Water Resources Department, Rewa and other authorities to take action but no decision on the representation of the petitioner has been taken till date. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the respondent authorities be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation claimi...
Gulab Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri S.K.Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.25/12 registered at P.S.Adhartal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 4.4.2012. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct evidence against the present applicant that he fraudulently deceived Rohit, Sandeep, Prashant, Gokul, Amit and Chandrasekhar by saying that he has good relations with Personal Assistant of a Minister and he is able to appoint them directly. It is further on record that these unemployed youths...
ishtayaq HussaIn Vs. Rampal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.795/04. 1.8.2012. Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.1615/12, appellant's application permitting him to withdraw this appeal as not pressed. The appearing counsel of the appellant submits that aforesaid application has been filed by the appellant himself without giving any information to him, hence he is not in a position to make any submission on such IA. Such submission is taken on record. Having perused the IA, the same is signed by the appellant himself with an endorsement that he himself is filing this application. According to this IA the appellant himself does not want to prosecute this appeal. Hence, by allowing the same the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that if on verification it is found that the impugned application has not been filed by the appellant then in that circumstance appellant's counsel shal...
Anil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.11074 / 2012 (Anil & another...Vs...State of MP and otheRs.01-08-2012 Heard Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition on an apprehension that the respondents would take coercive steps against them and may also threaten them with dire consequences to life and liberty on account of the fact that they have entered into wedlock without the consent of their parents as both of them belong to different castes. From a perusal of the petition as well as the documents filed by the petitioners it is clear that the petitioners have not filed any complaint or F.I.R.against any of the private respondents to the effect that they have threatened the petitioners on a particular date, in a particular manner, on a particular place or with a particular consequence and in fact the petition has been filed on the basis of mere apprehension that the respondents would do so. In the circumstances the w...
Kashi Prasad Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 K.P.Dubey versus State W.P.No.15433/2008 1/8/2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents . Application filed by the petitioner for review under Section 29 of M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules 1966 has been rejected by the Appellate Authority mainly on the ground that against an order passed in an appeal, no further review is permissible. However, this contention of the respondents seems to be incorrect, in view of law laid down by the Division Bench in W.P.No.12356/2008 on 11.11.2008. It has been held by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that against the order passed by an appellate authority even though no appeal is allowed under the Rules but review is available under Rule 29 of M.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. Keeping in view the aforesaid, prima facie order passed by the State Government rejecting the application for review under Rule 29 seems to be unsustainable. Smt. ...
Shankar Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.11559/2012 Shankar Lal Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.08.2012 Shri Anil Lala learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to assail the impugned order by taking up proceedings before the appropriate authority in accordance with the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995. It is, however, observed that in case the petitioner does take up proceedings against the impugned order before the competent authority within fifteen days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same on merits and shall not dismiss it only on the ground of limitation. It is made clear that in case the petitioner files an application for interim relief alongwith the proceedings, the same shall be taken up and orders thereon shall be passed at the earliest, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty and observation the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of. C....
Sarju Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.5931/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Y.K.Gupta, 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 10/10/2011 in connection with Crime No.159/2011 registered at P.S.Salamatpur, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC read with section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in-law of deceased Mamta Bai, who committed suicide by hanging herself within 7 years of the marriage. It is further submitted that no specific allegation made against this applicant in regard to demand of dowry and cruelty. Deceased Mamta was issue less therefore, she committed suicide due to depression. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be dispo...
- ‹ Prev
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 149
- 150
- Next ›
- Last »