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.
Kailash Prasad Halwai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.A.No.952/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 01.08.2012 in W.P.No.11841/2012(S) by which writ petition preferred by appellant against his transfer from District Office, Shahdol to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Land Record, Rewa was dismissed. This transfer order has been assailed on the ground that the appellant has suffered frequent transfer ordeRs.For this purpose, the appellant has shown orders Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-5, in support of the aforesaid contention. From the perusal of order Annexure P-3, we find that appellant, who was posted at Akhetpur was transferred to Land Management & Diversion Branch of Collectorate, Shahdol on 02.05.2011. Thereafter, vide order Annexure P-5, the appellant was transferred from Diversion Branch, Shahdol to the earlier place as Revenue Inspector, Akhetpur on 01.12.2011. Meaning thereby, the appellant was transfe...
Sakina Bano Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Mp State Wakf Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13837/2012 (Sakina Bano 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.81/12 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, she is unable to respond properly to the said notice or defend herself 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 the...
Himanshu Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13793 / 2012 (Himanshu Dwivedi..Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.29-08-2012 Shri B.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the order dated 12-1-2011 as well as the decision taken by the respondent No.2 in the order sheet dated 14-4-2012. The case of the petitioner is that he had been engaged as special counsel by the respondent No.2 but had been disengaged by order dated 12-1-2011. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had been disengaged on account of doubts expressed by the Chairman of the Board regarding the competence of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.9304/2012 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 2-2-2012 by observing that the commends made in Annexure P/2-A filed by the petitioner alongwith that petition regarding professional competence of the petitioner shall not be treated...
Ramsiya Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.9951/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Ankit Kumar Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Shri Pathak prays for further four weeks' time to produce the corpus of Ku. Puja Shukla before this Court. In the interest of justice, prayer is allowed. Considering the allegations made in the written complaint Annexure P-3 dated 20.12.2011, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Rewa to assign investigation of the matter to an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who would submit his report along with case diary, on the next date of hearing. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for necessary compliance. Be listed for hearing on 03.10.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
Dr.Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.10338/2006 29.08.2012 Shri Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. The controveRs.involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.19706/2003 (O.A.No.1791/2002) decided on 06.11.2003. The only grievance of the petitioner was that he made a claim for his absorption on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer on account of taking over of dispensary in which he was appointed as Vaidya. The controveRs.was decided by the Tribunal as also by this Court on account of which on 28/29.10.2001 the order of absorption was issued in respect of the persons like petitioner. The name of the petitioner was mentioned at serial No.5 of the order. The order very categorically contends that the services of the petitioner are absorbed as Ayurved Medical Officer with effect from 01.04.1981. In paragraph two of this order, it was categorically directed that the persons so absorbed be p...
Chitra Sen Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13501/2012 29.08.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and...
Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.NO.18982/11. 29.8.2012. None for the petitioner. Respondent No.1, 3 and 6 appears to be unserved. Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None for the respondent No.4 and 5, although served. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for respondent No.7. Notice issued to the respondent No.1, 3 and 6 have not been received back served or unserved. In the available circumstances, it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisites of registered post within seven days notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of October, 2012 be issued to the respondent No.1, 3 and 6, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k...
Rajesh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.278 OF 199.Rajesh. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of August, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/1/1997 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.814/93, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, three months additional RI was directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 22.4.1993 the prosecutr...
K.P. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
K.P.Sharma versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13587 / 2012 (s) 29.8.2012: Shri M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State. Learned counsel submits that I.A.No.11483/2012 has been wrongly filed in this case, it is to be filed in W.P.No.13588/2012, the application be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file it in appropriate case. Interalia contending that petitioner is being relieved in pursuance to transfer order Annexure P-1 dated 13.7.2012 issued in the name of one K.P.Sharma, who is different person and not the present petitioner and contending that Shri K.P.Sharma, who has been transferred vide order Annexure P-1 on 13.7.2012 has already retired and instead petitioner is being relieved in the garb of order dated 13.7.2012, even though he has not been transferred, petitioner has approached this Court. On a perusal of the order passed it is seen that it pertains to one Shri K.P.Sharma and name of petitio...
Rajendra Kumar Purohit 62 Vs. Dr. Pukhraj Maru I.A.S.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Contempt Case No.1529 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »