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.
Tulsi Ram Vs. Ramdulare Panika
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.14843 o25. 09.2012 Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for respondent no.2, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class- II, Waidhan in Civil Suit No.107-A/2011 whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, R/w Section 151 of CPC, for dismissal of the impugned suit of the respondent No.1 for declaration and perpetual injunction as barred by time, has been dismissed. PetitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as papers placed on record argued that in the available circumstances the Article 65 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the present case. Infact the impugned case is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act in which three years limitation to file the suit for declaration to challenge any ...
Ramesh Kumar Atriwal Vs. Smt. Lata Devi Atriwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Writ Petition No.14673/12. 25.9.2012 Ku. Ashmita Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within 3 working days, the notice against admission of this petition as well as of I.A.No.11620/12, returnable by fixing a date 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 proceedings of Civil Original Suit No.57-A/11, pending in the Court of IVth Additional District Judge Khandwa, is hereby stayed. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Himmat Singh Gurjar Vs. D.K.Samantare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
25.09.2012. Shri Ajay Shukla for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non-applicants. Applicant was working as a Male Counsellor/Feeding Demonstrator in Nutrition Rehabilitation Center established under the National Rural Health Mission. The State of Madhya Pradesh took a decision to engage Female Counsellors and Female Demonstrators only, as a result the contract appointment of the applicant was terminated. Action taken throughout the State was challenged and the Gwalior Bench of this Court, in the case of Hemant Nagar and others versus State of MP and others [Writ Petition No:2945/2011(s)]., and the Indore Bench in the case of Sajid Khan and others versus State of MP and others [Writ Petition No.10550/2010]., quashed the advertisement for filling up 100% posts through women candidates and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter Petitions were thereafter filed and the Government took a policy decision indicating that under the National Rural H...
Sanjay Agrawal Vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Writ Petition No.14676/12. 25.9.2012 Shri Manot Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities not to create any hindrance in possession of land of the petitioner stated in the petition by installing any electric pole or in any other manner. In the couRs.of arguments on admission in the light of involvement of various disputed facts in the matter, on making certain query how such question could be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the efficacious forum to file the Civil Suit is available to the petitioner on which, instead to argue further, petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the civil suit before the appropriate Court permissible under the law. Considering such prayer, the...
Sushila Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Sushila Dubey versus State of MP and otheRs.25.09.2012. Smt. Durgesh Thapa for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and has indicated multi-farious grievances. The grievances put forth by the petitioner are not clear and are incapable of being properly understood. However, one fact that is clear from the records is that a representation filed by the petitioner in the matter is pending. Therefore, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner pending before it in accordance to law by a speaking order within a period of six weeks. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Mangobai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 W.P.NO.16011 of 2012. 25.9.2012. Shri Radhe Lal Gupta, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents No.1 and 5 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Let notice against admission as well as interim relief, returnable within six weeks, be issued to the respondents. PF along with requisites of the registered post be submitted within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. Keeping in view the circumstance that the impugned order dated 27.8.12 (Annex.P/2) has been passed by respondent No.2 Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Case No.26-A/5/11-12 without impleading the petitioners as parties in the matter and not under implementation of such order Annx.P/2, the respondents No.3 and 4 are going to establish the way from the land of the petitioners bearing Survey No.297 and 298 which are recorded respectively in their name as Bhumi Swami in the revenue record which is evident from...
Mr. Bal Mukund Panday Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.13038/2012 25.09.2012 Ms.Prachi Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. At the request of the petitioner's counsel the case is taken out of its turn from the cause list as appearing counsel has come from Delhi. I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that some similar petitions are also pending in this Court and same are listed today as item Nos.20 and 21. It is already 4.30 PM, so even otherwise hearing of this petition alongwith aforesaid similar petitions is not possible today. On asking the petitioner's counsel whether she is available tomorrow, on which she has prayed to list this matter on 11th of October 2012 instead tomorrow. Considering her prayer the case is adjourned with a direction to place the same on 11th of October 2012 alongwith connected W.P.No.13216/2012 and W.P.No.13229/2012 by giving the separate numbers in the cause list. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Dilip Kumar Nagwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.15786 o25. 09.12 Shri Deepak Panjwani, counsel for the petitioner. Smt Sharda Dubey, PL for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to remove him from the land at sheet No.2C, plot No.8/1,8/2 and 8/3 Tahsil Katangi District Balaghat without considering his representation made on 22.2.2012 (Annexure P/8) to the respondent No.1/ Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of M.P.Having heard the petitioner's counsel, in the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of respondent No.1 to consider and decide the above mentioned representation of the petitioner Annex.P/8 within sixty days from the date of submitting the certified c...
N.K.Dwivedi Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.(s).No.3771/2005 25.09.2012 Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. This Court has specifically directed to produce the A.C.R.folder of the petitioner. The order was reiterated on 06.09.2012. Learned Government Advocate states that the A.C.R.folders are not available. A prayer is made for grant of some more time. Learned counsel for the parties also prayed for some more time. List immediately after 10 days. It is made clear that in case the A.C.R.folders are not produced by the next date, serious action would be taken against the respondents. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Smt. Meena Vs. Smt. Rekha Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.14625/2012 21.09.2012 Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 27.6.2012, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Harda in Election Case No.1/10, whereby allowing the application of the respondent No.1 filed under Order 16, Rule 2 and 3 of the CPC, the direction to call the ballet box for recounting the votes of alleged election has been given. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner's counsel for admission and allowing this petition but in view of earlier decision of this court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar versus Premchand and another reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ.410, on making certain query from petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to raise the ground and objections stated...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »