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.
Sumit Singh Chauhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Cr. Appeal No.89/12 29.8.2012 Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.16555/12, a repeat application on behalf of appellant for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 12.1.2012 by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after six months and this I.A.has been preferred under such liberty. Appellant has been convicted under Sections 8 read with Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act for R.I.4 years with fine of Rs.1000/- for having the possession of 2.700 Kg., the contraband substance the Ganja. As per record, he suffered the judicial custody between 15.5.2008 to 4.8.2008 and since the date of the impugned judgment i.e.31.12.2011, he is facing the awarded jail sentence. In such premises, he has suffered near about eleven months out of the awarded jail sentence. Keeping in view the nature of evidence ...
Hari Shankar Pandey Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13499/2012 29.08.2012 Ms.Laxmi Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended that the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.1381/2007, wherein the following order was passed :- On the last date of hearing, we asked Mr.Chandak to enquire that in the matter of Badri Prasad Tiwari versus M.P.Road Transport Corporation (Writ Petition No.695/2007(s) decided on 17.1.2007).any appeal has been filed or not, we are informed that the said order had attained finality and the Respondent-Corporation has accepted the verdict of this Court and has paid 8% interest on EDF and 6% interest on delayed payment of the salary. If such is the case then the respondents cannot be allowed to contest the litigation saying that they are not liable to pay to the present appellant, though they had paid the amount to the other claimant. As the judgment i...
Chamarulal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Chamarulal versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13600 29. 8.2012: Shri Jay Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as daily wages employee in the Department of Veterinary Services and claims regularization in service on the ground that he has completed more than 20 years of service. He is working regularly since 1992 and is entitled to regularization in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC, 1, and the policies formulated by the State Government on 16/05/2007 and further on 06/09/08, claiming regularization, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioner for regularization in accordance to policies and circulars of the State Government and pass appropriate orders...
Kishore Kumar Vs. the Registrar Cooperative Societies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13526/2012 (Kishore Kumar versus The Registrar Cooperative Societies and another) 29.08.2012 Heard Shri Kapil Jain,, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that a direction be issued to the respondent No.1, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner under section 64 (2) (v) of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act 1960 read with Rule 52 of M.P.Cooperative Societies Rule, 1962 pending before him which has been filed by the petitioner on 04.08.2012. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner has filed the dispute on 04.08.2012 and within a short span of 20 days he has filed this petition seeking the aforesaid direction. It is further apparent that the petitioner's application for stay is already pending before the authority in which he has also prayed for early decision of the dispute. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has a...
Smt. Gayatri Devi Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Smt. Gangotri Devi versus State W.P.No.10627/2012 29/8/2012 : Shri J.P.S. Oberoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Peon in the respondent Bank and has filed this writ petition challenging the transfer of the petitioner to the Head Quarter. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. Petitioner is only transferred from Jabalpur to Patan which is hardly 50 kms away and infact Patan is not part and parcel of Jabalpur. Petitioner is only transferred from one Branch to another in the same District which is less than 50 kms away. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, 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...
Jitendra Nagre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.13353/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Santosh Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. 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 appeal filed by writ peti...
Radali Bega Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.12658/2012 ((Radali Bega 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 17.04.2012, passed by the Collector, Anuppur, whereby in view of certain complaints against the petitioner and the fact that he was not performing his 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 Chilpa, 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 he 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 17.04.2...
Ram Kishore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
W.P.No.5406/12 (Ram Kishore versus State of MP and otheRs.29.08.2012 Heard Shri R.B.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging improper investigation and false implication by the police authorities. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Shahdol to look into the matter of the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. To enable the respondent No.3 to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Satyaprakash Soni Vs. Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 W.P.No.8941/2012 Satya Prakash Soni versus Local Sales Department & ORS.29.08.2012 Heard Shri Anil Kumar Jain, 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 Corporation on the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent no.9 alleging encroachment, illegal construction and violation of the agreement. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such circumstances the respondent Corporation be directed to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with it in accordance with law. 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 effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent Corporation within fifteen days from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned aut...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. M/S R Haranadha Reddy a Partnership ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1 Arbitration Appeal No.14/2009 Steel Authority of India LTD.M/s R.Haranadha Reddy 29.8.2012 Shri A.P.Singh, Counsel for petitioner. Shri V.R.Rao, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri S.Rao, Counsel for respondent. I.A.No.7168/2009 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal Office has reported 4 days delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that he has no objection, if the delay in filing this appeal is condoned and matter is heard. In view of aforesaid, delay of 4 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri S.Rao. Appellant has already served copy of memo of appeal to the other side. I.A.Nos.7167/2009, 1092/2012 and 8151/2012 for stay of execution of the award pa ssed by the arbitrator It was submitted by Shri Singh that respondent has already filed an execution before the Court at Katni. It was also submitted by Shri Singh that appellant is ready to argue the matter finally...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »