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.
Rajendra Singh Tandon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.11580 o24. 09.2012 Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3, although represented as reflected by the proceeding dated 13.8.2012. Respondent No.4 appears to be unserved and subject to order of notice he is to be served. Shri R. Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. Counsel for respondent No.4 seeks for and is granted further period of three weeks to file the return in the matter. Let it be placed alongwith W.P.No.13023/2012 after three weeks. Interim order passed on dated 13.8.2012 is hereby continued. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Dr. Sukhendra Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
dr. sukhendra pratap singh versus state 1 W.P.No.15699/2012 24/9/2012 Shri M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as an Associate Professor in Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar and vide order dated 22.2.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority respondent No.2 punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect is imposed. Against the aforesaid punishment order petitioner has preferred an appeal Annexure P/15 dated 13.3.2012 to the competent authority and it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though more than five months have been passed, the appeal has not been decided. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner it is directed that competent appellate authority, before whom the appeal Annexure P/15 is pending, is directed to decide the appeal in accordance to law by a speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this orde...
Champalal(D)th.Lrs Smt Sonabai Vs. Raghunathrao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
1 S.A.No.764/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI SECOND APPEAL No.764 OF 200.Champalal (dead) through LRs and others vs Raghunathrao PRESENT : For appellants : Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate For respondent : Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (24/09/2012) This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate court dated 29/3/2007 in Civil Appeal No.97-A/2006 which has been admitted on 7.2.2011 on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in law in holding that the sale-deed dated 8.11.1977 is a mortgage with conditional sale especially when it did not contain any recital with regard to agreement for resale in the sale-deed as required under the proviso of Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ?..2. The facts i...
Dr. K.G.Choubey Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
WRIT PETITION No.8646/20124. 09.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri T.K.Khadka, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.N.Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent No.2. Though on the last date of hearing it was stated that the return on behalf of respondent No.2 is required to be filed, it appears that the said return has been filed adopting the return filed in other case. Since there are other analogous writ petitions and in one of which a detailed return has been filed, requirement of filing the return is complete. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in some of the cases the Union of India and its authorities as well as U.G.C.have been impleaded as parties and he also wish for impleading the said authorities as parties. A short adjournment is prayed for the said purpose. Prayer allowed. On impleadment of the new respondents, let a copy of the writ petition...
Sakuntala Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.16058/12 (s) 24/09/12 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. In view of the fact that petitioner is claiming regularization and office of respondents is situated in Bhopal and in many other cases petitions have been entertained in Principal Seat by virtue of orders passed by the Honble Chief Justice, office objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction is over ruled. Petitioner is working as daily wages employee in the respondents department since 12.4.91 and has completed more than 10 years of service and regularization is claimed on the ground that juniors have been regularized and on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ORS.versus Uma Devi & ORS. (2006).SCC 1 for considering the claim of employees for regularization. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are di...
Krishna Kumar Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
MCrC No.7857/2012 24.9.2012 Shri Sunil Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Adv.for the respondent-State. Arguments heard. This is an application, under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for modification of the conditions of bail. Vide order dated 16.6.2012 passed by Eighth ASJ.Jabalpur, in MCrC No.1529/12, the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to depositing Rs.1.13 lakhs with the trial Court and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.64/12 registered at P.S.Adhartal Distt. Jabalpur, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC. Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that along with his elder brother Shyam Sundar, he was also involved in deceiving complainant Akhilesh Shrivastava into a belief that being the owner thereof, they were...
Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
1 W.P.No.4462/98 24/09/12 Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. Challenging the order Annexure P-3 dated 31/08/98 passed by the Industrial Court M.P.Bench Jabalpur interfering with an order passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur as contained in Annexure P-1 dated 2/04/91, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working as a 'Conductor' in the M.P.State Road Transport Corporation. On 21/04/1987, petitioner was on duty as a 'Conductor' and was performing the duties. When the flying squad of the Corporation inspected the bus and on such inspection, it was found that out of 55 passengers travelling in the bus, 33 passengers were travelling without ticket and the petitioner was found to have already recovered the fare from all these passengeRs.Accordingly, a panchnama was prepared, a departmental enquiry conducted and on the basis of the finding of the guilt recorded in the departmental enquir...
Ajay Khire Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Ajay Khire versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.15968 24. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claim grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner without en...
Mali Ram Goyal Vs. Tajinder Singh Saluja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Writ Petition No.8665/12. 24.9.2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. With the consent of the parties this petition is heard finally. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure-P-1) passed by Vth Additional District Judge Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.531-A/2010 whereby, their application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, has been dismissed. With the aforesaid prayer of quashment of the order, an additional prayer to allow the amendment application Annexure-P-4, is also made. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record. By way of aforesaid application Annexure-P-4, the petitioners want to rectify the shop number by mentioning some new number of Arera Colony, near Metro Plaza, which is available to the respondents as alternate arran...
Moti Lal Vs. Dadu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
S.A.No.988/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on caveat. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Shah, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt., accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Issue notice to respondent No.2 against admission as well as on I.A.No.10446/2012, on payment of P.F.within three days. Until admission of the appeal, status quo with respect to possession shall be maintained by the parties. In the meantime, record of two Courts below be called for. List thereafter for admission as well as for further orders on I.A.No.10446/2012. C.C.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts....
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »