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.
Rajendra Singh Thakur Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
WP No.12983 o28. 08.2012 Shri B.R.Vijaywar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.7.2012, (Ann. P-3).the same is a notice under Rule 8 (1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 issued by the respondent State Bank intimating the petitioner to vacate the mortgaged property within seven days. Besides this the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents not to take possession of impugned mortgaged property till October 2013 is also made. In support of such subsequent prayer, it is also stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the requisite sum in October 2013 because in such month he is going to get the sum of terminal benefits on his retirement from the service. In the couRs.of...
Ram Kripal Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Ram Kripal Shrivastava versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13492/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, 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 AnnexureP1 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 ...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Shri C.D. Thakre
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.1272/2012 28.08.2012 Ms.Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent. By filing a response, it is contended by the respondent that in fact there was improper fixation of anticipatory pension on account of which the petitioner was paid excess amount than the entitlement and, therefore, the recovery has been directed by the sanctioning authority. The petitioner is required to appear before the Treasury Officer for verification of fact and then only the amount will be disbursed. This being so, let the petitioner appear before the District Treasury Officer concerned and to seek payment of pension in case it is finalised. As far as the, the recovery part is concerned, the adjudication of the claim would be done subsequently. Let this Contempt Petition be listed along with Writ Petition No.2558/2012. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Prasanna Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt.Meeta Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.11519/2007 Prasanna Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Meeta Jain and another As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate for the respondents. Order reserved on :25. 7.2012 Order passed on :28. 8.2012 ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.178/2004 whereby the application filed by the applicant seeking amendment in the reply/written statement has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the marriage of applicant and respondent No.1 was performed on 26.2.1996. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, which was decreed ex-parte on 4.9.2001, thereafter on 28.4.2004, after a lapse of 8 years, the respondents moved an application (P-3) under section 12...
Chief Managing Director (Cmd) Vs. Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
MCC No.912/12. 28.8.2012 Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the State/respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal. On behalf of the petitioneRs.this petition has been preferred for extension of time to comply the direction of the order dated 10.5.2012, passed in writ petition no.10.5.2012(S) whereby, the applicants authorities are directed to consider the representation of the respondent no.1 within 90 days. Now, the petitioners want further 90 days from the date of filing the present petition to consider such representation. Having heard, perused the petition for the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and the period granted vide order dated 10.5.2012 in the aforesaid writ petition to consider the representation of the respondent no.1, is further extended upto 7.11.2012 and within such period the authorities of the applicants are directed to comply the aforesaid order dated 10.5.2012. Pe...
Banshi Lal Shivavanshi(S.C.) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Banshi Lal Shivavanshi Vs.State & others W.P.No.12762/2012 28/08/2012 Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Praveen Verma and R.P.Singh 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 AnnexureP2 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 ...
Virendra Kumar Shrivas Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.5871/2006 28.08.2012 Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent-State. This Court has granted an opportunity to the State to verify certain facts as it was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in WP(S) No.1834/2005. It is stated by learned Govt. Advocate that he is required to seek instructions whether any policy is made by the State Government pursuance to the recommendations made by the UGC or not and whether the same has been made applicable to the persons like petitioner. For the said purpose, a short adjournment is sought. List in the week commencing 24.9.2012 to enable the learned Govt. Advocate to seek instructions. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Mohammad Firoz Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Writ Petition No.13231/12. 28.8.2012 Shri D. Chandra Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the State-respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the order dated 5.6.2012 (the part of Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no.1/Sub Divisional Officer in revenue appeal No.6/Appeal/11- 12 in which the present petitioner was not the party whereby, allowing the appeal of the concerning appellants namely; Shiv Narayan, Jagdish and Bhagwan Singh filed against one Rama Shaker, after setting aside the earlier order of Tahsildar dated 26.4.1975, the revenue case being No.1-A/27/74-75, was remitted back to such Court to decide afresh after holding the enquiry why the name of Sarju Bai, was left over on endorsing/recording the name of other co-Bhoomiswami over the disputed land. Subsequent ...
Shiv Shankar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
28.08.2012. Smt. Sudha Gautam for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the election duty entrusted to the petitioner as is evident from the documents collectively filed as Annexure P/6, respondents are directed to show cause as to why petitioner is being transferred when election duties have been entrusted to him and whether transfer of the petitioner is after due permission of the District Election Officer. Let a reply in this regard be filed on or before 25.9.2012. Till the next date, petitioner shall not be relieved and he shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. List on 25.9.2012. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Jayram Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Home Aff ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 W.P.No.13228/2012 Jayram Choudhary versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.08.2012 Heard Shri Anurag Shivhare learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a limited relief of a direction to the respondent Collector, Khandwa to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner against the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Delgaon, District Khandwa regarding misappropriation of the funds of MANREGA Scheme. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner shall be looked into and dealt with it in accordance with law. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 Collector, Khandwa to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law. To enable him to do so, a copy of the order pass...