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.
Harjeet Kaur Vs. Parvinder Kaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Writ Petition No.13704/12. 24.8.2012 Shri Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. On payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission of this petition as well as of I.A.No.11016/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the trial Court, returnable by fixing a date in the week commencing 24.9.2012, be issued to the respondents failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing, the further proceedings of Civil Original Suit No.60A/11, pending in the Court of IVth Additional District Judge Khandwa, is hereby stayed. Case be listed on the date so mentioned on the aforesaid notice. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Sewakram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
M.Cr.C.No.10039/2012 24.8.2012 Shri A.Usmani, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, matter is heard finally. The applicant has moved an application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.to get the extension of time in the judgment dated 25.11.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.967/1998. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant that 2 months time was given to the appellant to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court but, the appellant could not deposit the fine amount within that period and therefore, he is arrested by the trial Court for execution of default sentence and therefore, time may be extended. According to the provisions of section 68 of the IPC, imprisonment which is imposed in default of fine, shall be terminated as the fine amount is paid and therefore, the appellant can deposit the fine amount even at present. There is no need to extend the time. If he d...
Tularam Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.12345/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Amit Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer 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 petitions suc...
Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.12487/12 24/08/12 Shri Mohit Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the order Annexure P-7 dated 19/07/11 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar rejecting a revision/appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is still working as a 'Panchayat Karmi' and, therefore, the appeal/revision is not maintainable, petitioner has filed this writ petition. From the records, it is seen that petitioner is working as a 'Panchayat Karmi' and while so working in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 (1) of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam vide order Annexure P-6 dated 1/03/11, the Collector had withdrawn the powers of 'Panchayat Secretary'. It is this order passed by the Collector withdrawing the powers of 'Panchayat Secretary' against which the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner instead of adjudicating the disput...
R.D. Vaishnav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.10618/20024. 08.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents-State. It is stated by learned Govt. Advocate that the affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge in compliance of order dated 11.01.2012 has been filed. It is seen that the affidavit is not correct as it is stated in one line that the order was communicated to the Officer-in-Charge but in the subsequent lines it has been stated that the said communication was not received by him before the date fixed for personal appearance before this Court. This being so, learned Govt. Advocate is directed to file an appropriate affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge within two weeks. List immediately thereafter. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Smt. Ramakanta Pateriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.A.No.959/2012 24.8.2012 Shri Iqbal Ahmed, counsel for appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.8.2012 passed by Single Bench in W.P.No.12545/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against her transfer order was dismissed. It was submitted by the appellant that the appellant is a heart patient. Earlier she had suffered heart attack and is under treatment. The appellant has been transferred to an interior place where there is no facility of treatment in case of emergency. It was submitted that the respondent no.4 be directed to consider the representation of the appellant against the transfer order. The prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by the learned counsel for respondents. In view of aforesaid, we direct respondent no.4 to consider and decide the representation of the appellant, expeditiously as far as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. For...
Smt. Anju Dwivedi Vs. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwadyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.12785 o24. 08.2012 Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order award dated 21.5.2008 (P-5) and also to set aside the order of Reference dated 30.6.2010 (Ann. P-8).In alternative the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.or to return the land with compensation of Rs.2 lacs is made. After taking me through the averments of the petition as well as papers placed on record alongwith the aforesaid orders of the authorities by referring Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act the petitioner's counsel has stated that right to make reference against the impugned award under Section 18 of the Land A...
Roshan Lal Ashapure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.4276/2011 24.08.2012 Shri S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the return filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 and I.A., for vacating stay have not been served on him. Let the counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 deliver a set of return and the I.A., for vacating interim stay to the petitioner within two working days. List immediately after two weeks enabling the learned counsel for the petitioner to file response to I.A., for vacating stay. I.R.to continue till next date of listing. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohanlal Kumhar [Prajapati]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
State of MP & ORS.versus Mohanlal Kumhar(Prajapati) R.P.No.579/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the non-applicant on advance notice. This application has been filed for recall/ modification of the order passed on 12.9.2011 in W.P.No.14322/2011. It is pointed by Shri Rajesh Tiwari that the non-applicant had claimed benefit of an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.128/1999 (Smt. Savitri Bai versus State of M.P.) and while disposing of the writ petition without notice to the respondents, this Court had directed the State Government to consider and extend the benefit to the non-applicant. By giving various reasons not in this application, applicants have tried to demonstrate before this Court that non-applicant is not entitled to the said benefit arising out of the order passed in case of Savitri Bai (Supra).However, this Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondent...
Ghanshyam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 M.Cr.C No.9765/12 24.08.2012. Shri G.S.Rajput, Advocate for appellant. Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for State. Heard finally. This petition has been filed to extend the time granted in Criminal Appeal No.2570/05 on 13.12.11 to deposit the fine amount of Rs.15,000/-. Looking to the averments made in the petition together with the fact that it is supported by an affidavit of petitioner Ghanshyam, petition is allowed. Three months further time is granted from today to deposit the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- as per judgment dated 13.12.11 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2570/05 on 13.12.11. Petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- before the trial Court within a period of three months from today. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »