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.
Hriday Narayan Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.9511/2012 (Hriday Narayan Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.03.09.2012 Heard Shri J.L.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents for taking action against the respondent No.5 on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, State Economic Offence Wing dated 11.04.2011 wherein it is state that it has been found that the respondent No.5 is in possession of assets much beyond his income. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents filed along with the petition. It is apparent that the matter is already seized by the respondents/authorities and an enquiry has been conducted into the matter by the Superintendent of Police, State Economic Offence Wing, Rewa and a report to that effect has been submitted, for further action, to the respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, State Economic Offence Investigation ...
Madhu Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Madhu Tiwari versus State W.P.No.13670/2012 3/9/2012 : Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Inter alia contending that respondent No.7 Smt. Prabha Pandey has been appointed as Asha Karyakarta on the basis of forged documents and challenging the said appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Record indicates that an appeal/ representation in this regard has already been filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer vide Annexure P/9 and till date no action is taken on the same. In view of the above, for the present respondent No.5 the S.D.M., Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol before whom the representation/ appeal is filed, is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance to law after hearing all concern within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case respondent No.5 feels that he has no jurisdiction, he may forward the representation to the...
Kamal Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
1 RP No.586/2012 03.09.2012 Shri B.D'Silva, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri V. Bhide for the petitioner. Shri Mohan Sausarkar and Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Smt. Shimla Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2 The petitioner has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.9811/2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner in the petition had prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2, however, during arguments, it was pointed out that the matter is not pending before the respondent No.1, however it appears that on account of a typographical error, the direction has been issued to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, whereas infact direction this court had issued a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed. ...
Bhola Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.13676/2012 03.09.2012 Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second Kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 26.05.2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) the directions given is as under. 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned...
Salil Kumar Singh Vs. Shri Raghav Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Salil Kumar Singh versus Shri Raghav Chandra & ORS.Contempt Petition No.1772 3. 9.2012 Shri Pramod Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant. This contempt application was filed on 14.12.07 and it was listed for the fiRs.time on 25.1.2008 when the case was adjourned and thereafter it is listed today after more than 4 yeaRs.It is grievance of applicant that certain directions issued on 30.1.2006 in M.P.No.4621/1993 has not been complied with and, therefore, this application has been filed. The non-applicants, who were arrayed as non-applicants in the year 2007 are no more available and it is not a fit case where after such a long period of time contempt proceedings should be initiated. In view of above, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt not after more than 5 yeaRs.Instead it is directed that in case benefit accruing to the applicant in accordance to direction issued on 30.1.2006 in M.P.No.4621/1993 has not been granted, the applicant may raise fresh claim before the co...
Mewalal Vs. Vinayak Prasad (Dead) Th. Lr's Awadhesh Prasad Prasad Dwiv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
R.P No.482/2011 03.09.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, Advocate for some of the respondents. This review application has been filed to review the order dated 5.9.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.480/1993. The contention of learned senior counsel is that under the wrong impression I.A.No.7238/2011 was filed to delete the name of Smt. Shyamkali who was arrayed as respondent no.10 in the said second appeal stating in the application that she had died five years ago from the date of filing of application which was filed on 21.6.2011. It has been mentioned in the application that appellant no.4 namely Bhaiyalal informed the counsel for the appellant on 14.5.2011 about the factum of death of respondent no.10. The affidavit of respondent no.4 Bhaiyalal is on record. not in this review application it has been mentioned that said Smt. Shyamkali is alive and the aforesaid application filed in second appeal was filed...
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Vs. Sanjay Maheshwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. versus Sanjay Maheshwari & ORS.Review Petition No.633 3. 9.2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel with Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for non- applicant Nos.2 & 3. I.A.No.9774/2012 is filed for amendment in the cause title. Application is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within a week. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that while disposing of the Writ Petition No.182/2011(s) on 7.1.2011, this Court directed the respondents (in the writ petition) to grant the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Court in various writ petitions. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in various similar writ petitions the case of employees were screened and thereafter benefit was granted, whereas in the present case non-applicant No.1 (Petitioner in W.P.No.182/201...
Rishi Kunj Ashram Satsang Samiti Panch Math Vs. the State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.11049 / 2012 (Rishi Kunj Ashram Satsang Samiti, Rewa & another ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.03-09-2012 Heard Shri Manish K. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Though the petitioner has filed this petition raising several issues, the petitioner, who is managing the petitioner/trust has submitted that he has sought help from the Registrar, Public Trusts by filing a complaint against illegal activities by certain persons but the same has not been considered and decided till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent/Registrar, Public Trusts, Rewa be directed to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner before him. 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 respondent No.3, Registrar, Public Trusts, Rewa, to look into the grievance of the petitioner if so required and warranted in accordance with law. It is made clear that th...
Shiv Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Shiv Kumar Mishra versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14015/2012 03/09/2012 Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. At this stage, Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel along with Shri P.S.Gaharwar appears on behalf of Respondent No.8 Shri Daya Shankar Sharma. Notice be issued to all the respondents except Respondent No.8. Respondents to file their reply within four weeks. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of interim relief. From the documents available on record, it is seen that a resolution has been passed by the Gram Panchayat for removing the petitioner from service and the action is taken after this resolution is approved by the Gram Sabha. Prima-facie, it is also seen that before passing the resolution, a notice was issued to the petitioner and when the petitioner refused to respond to this notice, action is taken, however, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is not...
Badri Prasad Vs. Narayan Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.P.No.9318/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Abdul Vaheed Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length prays for permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the Court before whom the suit is pending with a prayer to permit him to accept the documents already filed by him alongwith the written statement in respect of the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.2 Radha Krishna Gupta. The liberty as prayed for is granted without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 159
- Next ›
- Last »