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.
Adnan Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13799/2012 (Adnan versus C.E.O., MP State Wakf Board 29.08.2012 Heard Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Wakf Board Bhopal in case No.77/12 on the ground that the said notice is absolutely vague as it does not mention the particulars of the property said to have been encroached upon by the petitioner not does it give details of the name of the Wakf to which the property is alleged to belong. It is submitted that the petitioner has several properties in Harda and therefore, he is unable to respond properly to the said notice or defend himself and therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has brought all these lacunas to the notice of the authority issuing the show cause notice by filing a reply on 03.05.2012 but no details thereafter...
Pyarelal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.847/1997 Pyarelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.3.1997 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in ST. No.98/96 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304- A of I.P.C and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment in addition.2. Prosecution's case in short is that o...
K.K. Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Cr.Revision No.1533/2012 K.K.Dubey Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. ORDER (29.8.2012) 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 9.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raheli, District Sagar in S.T. No.507/2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed SHO, P.S. Raheli to investigate the offence under section 228 along with the offences under section 224, 229-A and 225-B of the IPC against the applicant.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant is an Advocate, he was appointed through Legal Aid Service Authority to defend the accused in S.T. No.507/2010. One of the accused Brijesh is in jail and he is appearing before the Court as under trial. Other accused persons namely Madan Mohan and Ramakanti remained absent b...
M/S Shree Jageshwar Construction Co. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Writ Petition No. 13673/2012 29.8.2012 Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, a subcontractor (as admitted in paragarph 5.4 of the petition). having No. applied in pursuance to Notice Inviting Tender dated 4.6.2012 for the work of construction of Bandri Banda Bara Kerbana Road 38.74 k.m., attributes the same to the arbitrary action of respondents, alleging that though only prime contractors were eligible as per tender condition yet by discreetly relaxing the same respondent No. 3, a subcontractor was allowed to participate and has been awarded the contract. To substantiate the contention petitioner has placed reliance on various completion certificates issued in favour of respondent No. 3 in capacity as Subcontractor from 17.2.2009 to 1.4.2011 (collectively filed as Annexure P/3).Reply to the representation preferred by the petitioner, brought on record as Annexure P/6, however,...
Smt. Savita Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Sarita Verma versus State W.P.No.12617/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an Auxiliary NuRs.Midwife in Community Health Centre, Jawa, District Rewa and by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 she has been transferred to Singrauli. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner's son has got some neurological problem and therefore, if the petitioner is transferred, treatment of her son would be adversely effected. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that petitioner is transferred from Tahsil Place Jawa to District Head Quarter and therefore, it would facilitate the treatment of petitioner's son. The grounds raised by the petitioner are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order is permissible. On the aforesaid ground, I am not inclined to interfere. Accordingly...
Lakhan Patel Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
M.C.C.No.850/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicants. Seeking restoration of S.A.No.974/2011 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17/7/2012, this petition has been preferred by the applicants. Considering the averments so made in restoration petition and with a view to do substantial justice, restoration petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of two weeks from today. Accordingly, S.A.No.974/2011 is hereby restored in its original number. A copy of this order be kept in the record of S.A.No.974/2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Ved Prakash Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13449/2012 29.08.2012 Shri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the ...
Brajendra Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.8960/2012 Brajendra Prasad Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.08.2012 Heard Shri R.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities against several irregularities committed by respondent nos.4 to 7. It is, however, apparent that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any complaint before the respondent no.1 State or respondent no.2 Collector, Rewa. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a complaint before the respondent nos.1 & 2, within fifteen days from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months thereafter, after hearing all concerned. It ...
M/S R.C. Saxena and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
...A.A.No.10 o29. 08.2012 Shri S.K.Patel, Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. Though on the last date of hearing, Shri Govind Patel, Advocate appeared and accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents and his name is also appearing in the cause list but neither he has filed his Vakalatnama, not he has caused appearance today. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the counsel for the appellant to serve copy of this appeal to another counsel for the Railways Shri N.S.Ruprah, during the couRs.of the day against acknowledgment. Be listed for hearing after a week . Office to show name of Shri Ruprah in the cause list. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj ...A.A.No.10 o29. 08.2012...
Ramji Lal Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Ramji Lal Pathak versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13583 29. 8.2012: Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner was working in the M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., vide order Annexure P-1 dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Government of M.P.under the Department of Energy petitioner's services were transferred to the M.P.Power Management Company (TRADECO).respondent No.3. Grievance of petitioner is that, even though his name appears at list of transferred employee to the aforesaid company, but has not been relieved for joining on the transferred post. Representation in this regard submitted to respondent No.4 on 6.6.2012 has not been taken note of and no action is taken, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court. On perusal of order passed by the State Government as contained in Annexure P-1 dated 10.4.2012 it is clear that services of petitioner has been transferred to TRADECO and p...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »