Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
S. P. Jyotishi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 s.p.jyotishi Vs. State HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.2617/2011 S. P. JYOTISHI VS. THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 27-9-2012 ) This is the second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner a retired employee who is more than 75 years of age. Records indicate that petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 16.12.1965. He was promoted as a Forester thereafter, as a Range Assistant and subsequently as a Deputy Ranger and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation as is evident from Annexure P/5 w.e.f. 31st January 1996. While the petitioner was so working in the department prior...
Pd. Shiv Prasad Tiwari Trust, Lordganj, Jabalpur Vs. Shri Balram Singh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.14877/12. 27.9.2012. Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.7.2012 (Ann. P.2) passed by 11th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Co.No.146-A/2008 whereby his application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for adjournment to record the evidence of the petitioner institution has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order. It is apparent from the impugned order that after taking as many as 24 adjournments for adducing the evidence on behalf of the petitioner on 25th date the impugned application (Ann. P.1) was filed contending that some material document is to be exhibited in the matter and the same being part of the record of other pending case in the Court of SDM, the petitioner could not file the same and in such ...
Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Shri Bhupendra Datt Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.13320/12(O).27.9.2012. Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of the mandamus directing the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Satna to consider and adjudicate the application of the respondent No.1 filed on dated 12.8.2010 under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing the additional issue on some early date. After taking me through the petition as well as the annexed papers the petitioner's counsel by referring the order sheet of the trial Court (Ann. P.5) argued that the impugned application (Ann. P.4) was filed by the respondent No.1 on 12.8.2010 and since that till today by mentioning one reason or another the case has been adjourned by the trial Court as many as on 20 dates up to 12.12.2011 and thereafter 2-3 dates have also been given by such Court in this regard but the appl...
Smt.Laxmibai Vs. Dileep Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
S.A.No.43/2007 27.09.2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the lower appellate Court was justified to dismiss the suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act particularly when the eviction was sought on various grounds before the Civil Court, however, the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is not in excess of the jurisdiction conferred under the law ?. Issue notice to the respondent, on payment of P.F.within a week along with copy of substantial question of law. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
Arjun Giri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
arjun giri versus state 1 W.P.No.15925/2012 27/9/2012 Shri N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Constable and was posted in District Katni under the administrative control of Superintendent of Police, Katni respondent No.4. On 4th September 2010 i.e.more than two years back the Inspector General of Police, Jabalpur Zone, respondent No.2 passed an order transferring the petitioner from Katni to the office of Superintendent of Police, State Economic Offences Bureau, Jabalpur. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has been transferred vide order dated 4.9.2010 more than two years have passed, respondent No.4 is not relieving the petitioner and because of the same he is not getting the benefit of order of transfer. It is stated by the petitioner that various representations in this regard submitted have not been considered and appropriate action taken, petit...
Santosh Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Santosh Kumar Soni versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16334 / 2012 (s) 27.9.2012: Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Chapa, Block Sohagpur, District Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13072012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, DistrictShahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Chapa, to Govt. Primary School Amlikherwa. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the studentsteacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision o...
Divya Shankar Shukla Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2174/1996 Divya Shankar Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri A. K. Pathak, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer . ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 27th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.1996 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST. No.08/1993 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C and sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, an additional rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is th...
Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.9672 o27. 09.12 Shri Aditya Adhikari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, PL for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddarth Singh, counsel for respondent No.5. I deem fit to hear this petition on admission as well as interim relief after filing the return by the respondents. On asking the Senior Advocate as well as the State counsel that how much time is required for the return, on which, they seek for and are granted period of three weeks to file the same. Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 29.10.12 for admission and consideration of the interim relief. As an interim measure, till next hearing of this petition, it is directed that the authorities of respondent No.1 to 4 shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in compliance of the directions of Annex.P/1 but shall not take possession of the disputed property unless the order of this court. C.C as per rule...
Roopam Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P No.9903/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9903/2010 PETITIONER : SMT. RASHMI RAJAK Vs. RESPONDENTS : UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.9656/2010 PETITIONER : ROOPAM KHARE Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Advocate University. For the State : Shri B. P. Pandey, Dy. G.A. WRIT PETITION NO.12796/2010 PETITIONER : MADHU GURU Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. WRIT PETITION NO.18229/2010 PETITIONER : PRACHI SHRIWASTWA Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. 2 W.P No.9903/2010 For the petitioner : ...
Zameer Ahmad Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khandwa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
S.A.No.1033/2012 27.09.2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.11060/2012, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. Issue notice of this application to the respondent, on payment of P.F.within a week. Notice be made returnable within six weeks. Until admission of the appeal, eviction part of the decree shall remain stayed subject to depositing arrears of rent within a month, if already not deposited and the appellant shall further deposit the regular rent on or before 15th day of every month. Record of two Courts below be called for. List thereafter for admission as well as for further orders on I.A.No.11060/2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »