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.
Harishankar Yadav Vs. Anoop Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
CONC.No.518/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Ishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the writ appeal preferred against the order of Writ Court has been admitted by the Division Bench, but interim prayer would be considered only when the petitioner herein, who is respondent before the Division Bench is served. Taking into account the aforesaid, let counsel for the petitioner to take steps for consideration of the application for interim prayer made before the Division Bench. List immediately after 15 days seeking such information. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Hari Prakas Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Hari Prakash Tiwari versus State & ORS.W.P.No.12756/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the records, it is seen that initially vide order AnnexureP5 dated 12.7.2012, petitioner was transferred on her own request from one school to another. Now on orders from the Minister Incharge of the district and the Government, the entire transfer exercise has been directed to be cancelled with regard to District Panna. In view of the above, as the State Government has cancelled the entire exercise in accordance with the directions issued by the Minister concerned, in the absence of any provision, rule or regulation shown to be violated, interference by this Court is No. warranted, as the action impugned is an executive excuse. Petitioner may represent to the State Government and it would be for the State Government to take action in the matter. Finding no case made out f...
Pappu @ Irshad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9962/2012 24.8.2012 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by orders dated 31.10.2011 and 13.6.2012 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in criminal appeal No.437/1999 wherein a warrant of arrest has been issued against him. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the applicant was convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation in ST No.156/98 passed on 30.1.1999 by the trial Court. Being aggrieved the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.437/1999 and was partly allowed vide order dated 6.5.2011. Conviction recorded in ST No.156/98 passed by the trial Court against the applicant/app...
Smt. Mamta Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.12531 o24. 08.2012 Shri Y.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent Nos.1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 SDO, Tah. Huzur, District Rewa to hear and adjudicate their pending appeal bearing No.158/A-6/07-08 on some early date with a time bound schedule. In the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice to the respondents, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.1 to hear and adjudicate the aforesaid pending revenue appeal on some early date, probably on or before 31.10.2012 under intimation to this Court. The petitioneRs.counsel is directed to submit the certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of this petition with Annexures in the office/Court of the respondent No.1 within seven days from today ena...
Rahul Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.7817/2012 Rahul Kurmi versus State of M.P.& ORS.24.08.2012 Heard Shri Shyam Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging non-payment of dues for executing the contract for cleaning of Matyari Dam Canal awarded to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation before the authorities, i.e.the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mandla claiming payment but the same has not been decided till date. In the circumstances, the learned counsel prays for disposal of the petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to do so. 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 files a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the respondent no.3 Exe...
Rosily George Vs. Pratibha Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 M.Cr.C. No.8971 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL M.Cr.C. No.8971 OF 201.APPLICANT : Rosily George Versus NON-APPLICANT: Pratibha Kumar ********************************************************************** For applicant : Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate. For non-applicant : None ********************************************************************** ORDER /08/2012 By Hon'ble Justice Shri Tarun Kumar Kaushal- This petition has been preferred under section 340 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) seeking relief to issue directions to prosecute the non-applicant for offence of perjury and offences under section 193, 199 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) for filing false affidavit and making false avernment on oath.2. Vide order dated 18/10/2011, learned Single Bench dismissed W.P No.17679/2011 that has been challenged in W.A No.1101/2011. During the c...
Smt.Nawab Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
W.P.No.12304/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. During the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court from Gwalior, in Writ Appeal No.596/2010 [Gopal Chawala and others versus State of M.P.and others]., on 15.12.2010, and pointed out that in pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench on 15.12.2010, order Annexure P-6 has been passed granting the benefit of absorption and pay to Guruji on the post of Shiksha Karmi-Grade III. Petitioner also claim similar benefit as has been granted to other similarly situated employees by virtue of the order by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal and the consequential order-Annexure P/6 passed. From the records, it is seen that in case of Gopal Chawala (supra).Division Bench of this Court has passed the following ordeRs.Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri C.S.Dixit, Duputy Ad...
Gram Panchayat Ulahi Khurd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 W.P.No.13484/2012 Gram Panchayat Ulahi Khurd versus State of M.P.& ORS.24.08.2012 Heard Shri R.K.Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the posting of respondent no.3 as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ulahi Khurd, Janpad Panchayat Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat has agitated the matter before the Commissioner requesting him to cancel the impugned transfer and posting of respondent no.3 in view of the fact that an enquiry in respect of defalcation and misappropriation of panchayat funds is pending against him, but the Commissioner, Revenue Division Rewa has dismissed the petitioner's appeal by order dated 28.7.2012 treating the appeal to have been filed against the circular of the State Government. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the order passed ...
Sayed Sadik Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1 MCC No.820/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.4909/2004 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 26.06.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant could not notice the case in the cause list and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2012 passed in W.P No.4909/2004 is r...
Ashok Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Ashok Dwivedi versus State & ors.W.P.No.13081/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the order passed under similar circumstances in the case of another Revenue Inspector (Lakhan Lal Soni versus State & Anr.) directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, this petition is also disposed of in identical terMs.In view of the order passed on 7.8.2012 in W.P.No.11139/2012(s).respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure- P8 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the representation is not decided, petitioner be permitted to work at his present place of posting at Jabalpur. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »