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.
Defence Estate Officer, M.P. Circle, Department of Defence, Union of I ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
M.C.C.No.1098/2012 27.09.2012 Shri Terence Burrows, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for respondent. Heard on restoration application. C.R.No.82/2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30/08/2012. After perusal of the application and the affidavit with a view to do substantial justice, restoration petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur within a period of one week from today which shall be utilized for the needy persons. Accordingly, C.R.No.82/20007 is hereby restored in its original number. A copy of this order be kept in the record of C.R.No.82/2007. List C.R.No.82/2007 for final hearing on 31st October, 2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts...
Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs. Kaushal Prasad Pandey (Dead) Th:lrs Laxman Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.14859/12(I).27.9.2012. Shri Rajiv Badkul, 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 31.7.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa in Co.No.171- A/12 whereby the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence has been closed. Having heard the counsel on perusing the papers placed on record along with the impugned order, I have found that such order has been passed in compliance and in consonance with the order dated 19.7.2010 (Ann. P.2) passed by this Court in WP No.5560/10, directing the trial Court to extend one opportunity to adduce the evidence to the plaintiff/ petitioner. As such witnesses of the plaintiff himself has left the Court of Commissioner during the couRs.of his cross-examination, in such premises on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permiss...
Premnarayan Gaur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.16273/12 27/09/12 Shri Shakti Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as an 'Asstt. Teacher' in Primary School Devriganj, Sankul Kendra Boys Excellence School, Gairatganj, Distt. Raisen. By the impugned order dated 13/07/12, petitioner has been transferred to Govt. Primary School Baber in the same district of Raisen. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has been entrusted with various work in the matter of registration of voters in the special drive and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Further, contending that the Tahsildar has recommended for not transferring the petitioner, interference into the matter is sought for. If the transfer of the petitioner adversely affects the work of registration of voteRs.petitioner should communicate this fact to respondent No.2 the District Election Officer and it would be for the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in ...
Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
vijay shanker pandey versus state 1 W.P.No.15933/2012 27/9/2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the order earlier passed by this Court on 9.8.2011 in W.P.No.11911/2012 it is clear that with regard to transfer of the petitioner ordered vide Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 this Court had already directed that petitioner should submit a representation along with an application for stay the same should be decided at an earlier date. However, not grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has submitted the representation along with an application for stay as is evident from Annexure P/8 and P/9 but till date neither his representation is decided not the stay application has been decided and without deciding his representation petitioner is proposed to be relieved. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, respondents are directe...
Pintu Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Pintu Kumar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 15799 / 2012 27.9.2012: Shri K.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and pointing out irregularity in the selection with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and the rules framed under section 95 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs. of statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take reco...
Hiralal Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 C.R.No.313/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI CIVIL REVISION No.313 OF 200.Hiralal vs Hari Singh and another PRESENT : For applicant : Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate For non-applicant No.1 : Shri Ishtiyaq Husaain , Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER (27/09/2012) Assailing the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sohagpur District Hoshangabad in M.J.C. No.6/2006 allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC filed by the non-applicant, this revision has been preferred by the applicant-decree holder.2. It is not in dispute that the applicant filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by him on 27/4/2001 is not an absolute sale but it is a conditional sale towards the security of the loan. In the said suit, notices were issued on the non-applicant which have been served by way of publication in daily new...
Ram Charan 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...
Kamlesh Prasad Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :4346. of 2008(S) Kamlesh Prasad - V/s - High Court of MP and another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manot Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rohit Jain, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Kaurav, counsel for respondent No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 27/09/2012 Challenging the order-dated 20.1.2006 Annexure P/1 passed by respondent No.2 imposing punishment of dismissal from service after departmental inquiry; the order-dated 27.12.2006 Annexure P/2 passed by the High Court rejecting the appeal of the petitioner; and, the order-dated 21.2.2003 Annexure P/3 rejecting the review application, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Facts that have come on record indicates that petitioner joined the serv...
Firoz HussaIn Vs. Faqruddin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.13891 o27. 09.12 Shri R.D.Hundikar, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Keeping in view the available circumstances, in which after marking the exhibit P/3, on the alleged impugned document of memorandum regarding partition in the deposition of plaintiff witness No.1 recorded on dated 23.6.09, the impugned order dated 10.7.12 Annex.P/1, has been passed whereby the aforesaid document Annex.P/3 has been impounded, without expressing any opinion at this stage, it is directed that on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days,notices against admission of this petition as well as on IA No.11118/12 an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the trial court, returnable within six weeks, 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 of this petition, the further proceedi...
Abhayraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.14943/12(O).27.9.2012. Shri Pushpendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent/ State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ lease holder of the alleged mines has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order bearing No.348/Khanij/2012 dated 12.3.2012 (Ann. P.12) passed by the respondent No.2 Collector Singrauli, whereby the mines activities of the petitioner over the alleged mines has been directed to be stopped. Initially the case was argued on merits but in view of provision of Rule 57 (2) of M.P.Mines and Minerals Rules, 1996, in which the impugned order is made appealable, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petitioner with liberty to file the aforesaid appeal before the appropriate forum and subject to out come of such appeal to file the appropr...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »