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.
M/S Crescent Water Park and Amusement Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
...W.P.No.19609 o29. 08.2012 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Kaurav. Shri Kaurav prays for 4 weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. It is stated by the petitioner that in other identical matters which are listed along with this petition, ad interim writ has been issued so similar direction may be issued in this petition also. Considering aforesaid, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for the recovery of tax in question of which validity is subjudice before the Apex Court. Be listed for further hearing on the prayer of ad interim writ on 11.10.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj ...W.P.No.19609 o29. 08.2012...
Mohan Vs. Matadin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Writ Petition No.12265/2012. 29.8.2012 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 10.7.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Amarpatan District Satna in Misc. Civil Appeal No.27/12 whereby his appeal filed against the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I Amarpatan in Misc. Civil Case No.2/2010 allowing the application of the respondent filed under Order 21 Rule 32 r/w Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner was directed to send him Civil Jail on account of violation of some decree of such Court, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the argument on admission on asking the petitioner's counsel what wrong has been committed by the appellate Court in holding that the appeal of the petitioner is not entertainable against the order dated 16.1.2012 (Ann. P.3).pas...
Smt. Kushum Shirothiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Kushum Shirothiya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13227 / 2012 (s) 29.8.2012: Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as A.N.M.in Sub Health Centre, Bandha Simariya (Bada Malahra) District Chhatarpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Sub Health Centre, Hinota (Loundi) in the same district Chhatarpur. Challenge to the transfer order is made merely on the ground of personal inconvenience of petitioner due to ailment of her husband and various other grounds. The grounds raised in this writ petition are personal inconveniences of petitioner and they are to be considered by the competent authority of the department and representation in this regard Annexure P-3 is already pending consideration. In view of above, respondents are directed to consider the representation of petitioner in accordance to law at an earlier date, till then, stat...
Smt. Padma Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.10039/2012 ((Smt. Padma Singh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 29.08.2012 Heard Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.06.2012, passed by the Collector, Anuppur, whereby in view of certain complaints against the petitioner and the fact that she was not performing her duties in accordance with the rules by not attending the meetings, the Collector by the aforesaid order has directed the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sakola, Janpad Panchayat Anuppur to perform the duties of Sarpanch. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order amounts to removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, even though she was an elected member, which is not permissible under Section 86(2) of the Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is apparent that the impugned order dated ...
Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13841/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. Looking to the fact that the fixation of salary of the petitioner was done by the District Education Officer in terms of the order passed by the competent authority in respect of the petitioner and otheRs.it is directed that no recovery whatsoever be made from the salary of the petitioner till the next date of listing. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Ramswaroop Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Cr.A.No.2572/11. 28.8.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.17424/12, appellant's second repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.1.2012. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of IPC for RI ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. As per case of the prosecution the prosecutrix was working as labourer at the place of the appellant and during the couRs.of such work she was taken away by the appellant inside of some place where after closing her mouth the alleged rape was committed by the appellant. The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial Court and the impugned judgment said that on proper appreciation and consideration the entire available evidence and exhibited papers of the charge sheet the gradients but it appea...
M.P.State Industrial Development Vs. M.P.Financial Corpotation and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.1800 o29. 08.12 Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Shukla, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Manish Verma, counsel of respondent No.2. In compliance of the order dated 25.7.2012 after holding the mediation proceedings the mediator report with respect of the dispute raised in this petition is placed on the record. On asking the counsel of the parties present whether any of them have any objection with respect of such report, on which, they fairly submit that they did not have any objection and jointly prayed to accept and make such report as rule of the court and dispose of this petition accordingly. In addition to it, counsel also prayed that pursuant to aforesaid all the interim orders passed earlier be declared to be vacated and hold that the same have come to an end and not all the parties will be governed by the aforesaid mediation report. In view of the aforesaid submission, with the consent of the parties, after perusing the mediation report dated ...
Smt. Kiranbala Pathak Vs. Dr. Pukhraj Maru I.A.S.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Contempt Case No.1530 o29. 08/2012 Shri R.N.Shukla, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.B.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General and Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the respondents. Shri Pathak submitted that the process for compliance of the order passed by this Court has already been initiated, however, being a financial matter, it will take sometime. He prays further 4 weeks time for compliance of the order passed by this Court and to make payment to the petitioner. Shri R.N.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel has no objection in allowing the aforesaid time but he submits that in place of 4 weeks, 6 weeks time may be allowed to the respondents for compliance of the order, but during this period the respondents should take effective steps. It is also submitted by him that on 12/04/2012, the Division Bench of this Court had specifically directed that in case, the order is not complied with, within the time period fixed, the Principal Secretary, De...
Harendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Harendra Singh versus State W.P.No.12061/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same District of Damoh. Inter alia contending that petitioner is 70% handicapped and therefore, transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the transfer policy, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Merely because the transfer policy is violated, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and otheRs.I.L.R.(2007) M.P.1329 . In view of the above, finding no case for interference this petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Mohd. MatIn Kha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13074 o29. 08.12 Smt Smita Arora, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, GA for the respondent/state. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to give him Rs.2,58,879/- the cost of auction sale of some wood/log which was the subject matter of criminal case No.40/87, 41/87 and 42/87 (State versus Mohd Mateen) in which initially the present petitioner was convicted under the forest offence by the trial court but on filing the appeal, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court in Cr.A.No.1225/95 vide dated 21.1.2010. Subsequent to aforesaid acquittal, on behalf of the petitioner, an application directing the respondent No.2 to give him the aforesaid sum, was filed in the Court of CJ.Mandla. The same was considered and allowed on dated 25.2.2012 and the respondents/ author...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »