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.
Smt. Mariya Ashif Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 Writ Petition No.14077/2012. 28.8.2012 Shri Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned public notice published in Dainik Bhaskar Bhopal on 29.7.2012 with respect of the property mentioned in the petition. Besides this the prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank not to auction or alienate the property of the petitioner in any manner and not to interfere in possession of the petitioners of such property is also made. In the couRs.of the argument on perusing the order dated 21.8.2012 (Ann. P.10) passed by the presiding officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A.No.116/12, it is revealed that the petitioners have come to this Court against such order of Debts Recovery Tribunal whereby such property is placed on auction in compliance of the provision of ...
Raj Kumar Namdeo Vs. Anirudh Mukherjee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Raj Kumar Namdeo versus Anirudh Mukherjee Con.C.No.975/2010 28/08/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for nonapplicant. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.3677/2010(s) on 26.3.2010 has No. been complied with, this application has been filed. Applicant was an employee working in the respondent, Corporation and contending that 'Over Time Allowance' for the work has No. been paid, W.P.No.3677/2010(s) was filed claiming payment of ` 99,065/. The said petition was disposed of on the very fiRs. date without notice to the respondents, directing them to evaluate the claim of the petitioner and decide it by a speaking order. Now submitting that case of the applicant has not been considered, this application for contempt has been filed. On notice being issued, nonapplicant has filed the reply and Shri P.K.Mishra, learne...
Rajendra Kumar Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Rajendra Kumar Rajput versus State & others W.P.No.13061/2012 28/08/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and challenge in this writ petition is made mainly on the ground that the policy of the State Government as contained in Clause9.5 of the circular AnnexureP5 dated 1st of May, 2012, wherein it is indicated that a Patwari or a Revenue Inspector shall not be posted in his home Tehsil. Challenge to this policy is made mainly on the ground that in Section 104 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Terms and Conditions governing appointment to the post of Patwari, there is no prohibition for his working in the home Tehsil and as the statutory provision is violated by incorporating such condition, this writ petition ...
Surajwali Vs. Shri Narendra Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Surajwali versus Narendra Sharma Con.C.No.14/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. GA for the respondent. This application has been filed for initiating action for contempt on the ground that certain directions issued on 14.5.2010 in W.P.No.15436/2003 has not been complied with. Taking note of the circulars and policies applicable in the matter of granting Kramonnati/ Time Bound Promotion after completing 12 years/ 24 years of service, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner but on the ground that the claim has No. been decided properly, this application has been filed. On notice being issued, nonapplicant has filed the reply and it is stated by the nonapplicant represented by Shri B.P.Pandey that as the applicant is a...
Jai Prakash Pateriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Jai Prakashi Pateriya versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13465 28. 8.2012: Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioner has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another and is holding the post of Secretary. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the grounds raised in this writ petition, I am of the considered view that grounds raised in the writ petition are not such on the basis of which a judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is permissible. Accordingly granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of departmental remedies available, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Kunti Devi Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13256 / 2012 (Kunti Devi Soni..v...State of MP & otheRs.28-08-2012 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. MRS.Sheetal Dubey, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by her. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the police authorities by filing a representation dated 3-7-2012 (Annexure P-5) but the same has not been considered and decided by the authorities till date. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police, Sagar, to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules....
Parsadi Kanchi Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1166/1997 Parsadi VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mahendra Choubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.5.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Damoh in Special case No.281/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 read with section 511 of IPC and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months' simple imprisonment was also directed.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 19.8.1993, at about 8 p.m., in the village Nandari, the prosecutrix (P.W....
Arun Chourasia Vs. Ramchandra Bichpuria
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
M.C.C.No.296 o28. 08/2012 ShrI Kapil Patwar dhan, learned counsel for the applican t. Shri Shailendra Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 . This is an applica tion for restoration of M.A.No.3174/2006, which was dismisse d in default due to non- compliance of peremptory order dated 18 -0906. . Vide order dated 18- 09-20 06 the applican t/appellant was directed to remove the default pointed out by the Registry within seven day s. The default was with regard to filing of type d copy of the award. The applicant removed the default on 05-10- 2006 but since it was not removed within the stipulated period, the appeal was dismisse d due to peremptory order. It is stated in the application that for the mistake on the part of counsel party should not suffer. For the reasons state d in the application and also in the interest of justice we deem it proper to allow the applica tion. M.A.No.317 406. is, therefore, directed to be restored to its original file . In the result I.A.No.255 6...
ishwardas Rai Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13028 o28. 08.12 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by the authority of respondent No.1 whereby contrary to the existing legal position his pension has been fixed Rs.11.13 paise per day. Pursuant to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to modify the aforesaid sum of the pension as per notification dated 31.5.12 (Annex.P/5) is also made. In the couRs.of the argument, in response of some query of the court asking why he has not filed the appeal against the impugned order when the same is made appealable under the provision of section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, on which, instead to argue further petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file the approp...
Daya Ram Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Daya Ramversus State & anr. W.P.No.12738/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and challenge in this writ petition is made mainly on the ground that the policy of the State Government as contained in Clause9.5 of the circular AnnexureP5 dated 1st of May, 2012, wherein it is indicated that a Patwari or a Revenue Inspector shall not be posted in his home Tehsil. Challenge to this policy is made mainly on the ground that in Section 104 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Terms and Conditions governing appointment to the post of Patwari, there is no prohibition for his working in the home Tehsil and as the statutory provision is violated by incorporating such condition, this writ petition is filed to declare the said Clause i.e. 9.5. as illeg...