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.
Pradeep Markam Vs. Shri R.K.Swai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Pradeep Markam versus Shri R.K.Swai & Anr. Conc. No.105 25. 9.2012: Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for non-applicants. Applicant was appointed as Hand-Pump Mechanic in the pay-scale Rs.3500-80-4000-100-5200/-. After his appointment in the aforesaid pay-scale it is seen that his pay was reduced and, therefore, challenging the order reducing his pay writ petition was filed. More than 10 writ petitions was disposed of by a common order passed on 28.9.2010, order passed reducing pay-scale was quashed and respondents/State was directed to pay salary in the minimum of pay as notified in the pay-scale and on which appointments were made i.e.pay-scale Rs.3500-5200/- contending that the orders being not complied with this application has been filed. Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the non- applicants have filed the reply and has brought on record order Annexure R-2 dated 31.5.2012 which indicates that against the order passed in...
Rukmani Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Rukmani Kushwaha versus State of MP and otheRs.25.09.2012. Shri Kuldeep Singh for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Female Health Worker and is posted in Samudayik Swasthya Kendra Badwar, District Satna. By the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1, petitioner has been transferred to the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Satna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in Badwar, there are only two posts of which one post is lying vacant and if the petitioner is transferred working in the center would be adversely affected, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is unsustainable. Contending that the competent authority of the Center has recommended for cancelling petitioners transfer, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the grounds raised by the petition...
Ramchand Nagwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.15780 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 representations made on 22.2.2012 (Annexure P/8) to the respondent No.1/ Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of M.P and 5.7.2012 Annexure P/7 to the respondent No.2/Commissioner of Jabalpur Division. 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 and 2 to consider and decide the above mentioned representatio...
Sunil Silavat Vs. Rakesh Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
narendra mani mishra vs sudesh kumar 1 Conc. No.1478/2012 25/9/2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued on 20.7.2012 in W.P.No.10882/2012 has not been complied with, this application has been filed. Petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging his suspension. As the appeal was pending before the competent authority, this Court thought it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to decide the same in accordance with law within 30 days. On the ground that the appeal has not been decided within the stipulated time, this application is filed. During the couRs.of hearing Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the appeal has been decided. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt not as the appeal is already decided. Shri Jaideep Sirpuraker, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits tha...
Rajendra Prasad Patel Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
Writ Petition No.14652/12. 25.9.2012 Shri Sanjay Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents no.1 & 2. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by Additional District Judge Maihar, District Satna in Civil Appeal No.34-A/2012 whereby, allowing the application of the respondent no.1 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC., the operation and execution of the decree dated 10.5.2012, passed by Civil Judge Class-I Maihar in Civil Original Suit No.16-A/2010, has been stayed. In the couRs.of arguments after perusing the impugned order on asking the petitioners counsel what error has been committed by the appellate Court in passing the impugned order on which, instead to argue further, seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of t...
Mridula Ben Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.7785 o25. 09.12 Shri Vivek Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally on merits. The petitioner/ decree holder has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 9.7.09 (Annex.P/1) passed by V ADJ.Bhopal in Execution Case No.315/08 whereby such execution proceedings filed by the petitioner to recover the sum of the decree dated 25.1.02 passed in Co.No.23- A/2000 by XIV ADJ.Indore, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, I have perused the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order. Undisputedly the impugned decree under execution was passed by this court at appellate stage on compromise of the parties in FA No.271/02 vide dated 1.12.05 (Annex.P/4).Such appeal was arisen out of the judgment of the trial court passed in the civil suit No.23-A/2000. According to such compromise decree (Annex...
Ram Kripal Kahar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 Cr.A No.1821/2004 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K. KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1821 OF 200.APPELLANT: Ram Kripal Kahar, S/o Mewalal Kahar, aged 51 years, R/o Ajuwa, Police Station Saini, District- Koshambi (U.P) at present R/o Shrimak Nagar, Police Station Kotma, District- Anuppur (MP) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh ****************************************************************** For appellant : Shri V.K. Lakhera, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer ****************************************************************** Date of hearing :25. 09/2012 Date of judgment: /10/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23/09/2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.135/2004 convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Gulabia bai (since deceased) and sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.2. Fac...
Mohan Chopada Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No 8539/2009 Mohan Chopada Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 6491/2009 Narsingh Ranga Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 6494/2009 Narendra Kumar Ranga Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 6497/2009 Manish Kumar Ranga Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 6498/2009 Rajesh Kumar Ranga Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8540/2009 Nand Kishore Agrawal Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8541/2009 Santosh Patel Vs. State of MP and others 2 W.P. No 8542/2009 Kishore Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8543/2009 Bhawesh Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8544/2009 Amba Lal Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8545/2009 Amrat Lal Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8546/2009 Dinesh Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8547/2009 Nand Kishore Agrawal Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8548/2009 Praveen Bhai Patel Vs. State of MP and others 3 W.P. No 8549/2009 Vishanji Patel Vs. State of MP and others W.P. No 8550/2009 Sitaram Agr...
Raghuntha Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1547/1996 Lal Bahadur VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1548/1996 Kalidin VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.K.Pandy, counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1547/1996. Smt. Sarita Chourasiya, counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1548/1996. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 25th day of September, 2012) Since both the appeals, arose from the common judgment and therefore, they are decided by this common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.41/1995, -:- 2 -:- ...
Ghanshyam Prasad Barasaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
W.P.No.11088/2012 (G.P.Barsaiya versus State of M.P.& ORS.25.09.2012 Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The missing person Smt. Sweta Rusia has been produced from the custody of respondent No.5. She makes a statement before this court that she wishes to go with the petitioner. She is permitted to do so. The learned Government Advocate states that the respondent police authorities shall conduct further enquiry in the matter and take action in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further survives for adjudication in the petition, which is accordingly disposed of in view of the statement of Smt. Sweta Rusia. (R.S.Jha) Judge gn...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »