Madhya Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments
Ramchandra Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Savitri Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.15899/12 (Ramchandra Jaiswal versus Smt. Savitri Singh and otheRs.28.09.2012 Heard Shri Arvind Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.3, the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa in revision case No.295/Revision/ 2011-12 wherein the petitioner's application for impleading the petitioner as a party in the revision proceedings has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the incharge Sarpanch, who is not a necessary party in the revision/ appeal proceedings taken up by the respondent No.1 against the order of her removal as Sarpanch, passed by the respondent No.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who is the Up-Sarpanch, along with other residents of the village had infact filed a complaint against the respondent No.1 on the basis of which proceedings under section 40 of the M.P.P...
Tag this Judgment!Gorelal Vs. Lal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.No.367/04 28.09.2012 None for appellants even in second round. Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that after obtaining stay on 4.3.04, appellants are not taking any interest in the appeal. He prays that stay order may be vacated. Looking to the circumstances of the case, stay granted on 4.3.04 by this Court is hereby vacated. Case has already been admitted for final hearing and record of trial Court has also been received. Therefore, office is directed to list this appeal for final hearing in due course. C.c.as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shandhya Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Smt. Sandhya Gautam versus State of MP and otheRs.28.09.2012. Shri Manish Soni for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Bada Itma, Ram Nagar to Government Abhay Sanskrit School Amarpatan, District Satna. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 the Headmaster of the School at Amarpatan is not permitting the petitioner to join duties. The order of transfer of the petitioner is issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, District Satna respondent No.4 Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents before respondent No.4, respondent No.4 shall issue directions with regard to posting and joining of the petitioner within a period of one week and respondent No.7 shall comply with the directions issued by respondent No.4. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified cop...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savita Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panch ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.P.No.739/12 28/09/12 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This review application has been filed for correcting an interim order passed by this Court on 7/09/12. The writ petition is still pending and the only correction sought for that the place of posting of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the order passed on 7/09/12. If that be so, petitioner should file an application for clarification in the pending writ petition so that necessary orders can be passed. It is not possible to consider the same in a separate review application as the petitioner can always move an application in the pending writ petition. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the pending writ petition. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2328/1996 Rajkumar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.12.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No.82/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and sentenced for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, one year's rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 30.3.1995, at about 10 a.m. in the morning, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was work...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kishore Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 Cr. A. No.2216/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2216/1996 Lalit Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Deepak Pendharkar, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.174/95, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment, he was to undergo for six months' R.I. in addition.2. The prosecutions case, in short is...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
P.N.Chaturvedi versus State of MP and otheRs.28.09.2012. Shri R.B.Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Rural Agriculture Development Office in the office of Deputy Director, Sagar and has been transferred to Rajgarh by the impugned order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner. Considering the fact that a representation in this regard is already pending, for the present without entering into the merits of the matter, it is directed that on the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order before the respondents, the respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Tag this Judgment!Aadesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Aadesh Kumar Jain & ORS.versus State & Anr. W.P.No.10451/2008 28/09/2012 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to take part in the examination process being conducted for appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer on regular basis, this writ petition was filed in the year 2008. Petitioners were working as a Daily Wages Employees and when a selection process was conducted for regular appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer and when the petitioners were denied opportunity to participate in the process of examination, this writ petition was filed by the petitioners and the only grievance put forth by them was to permit them to participate in the process of selection. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination, which was to be conducted on 30th of August, 2008 and petitioners were permitted to participate in t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhan Lal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1367 OF 199.Lakhan Lal Khangar. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12/8/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai District Sagar in ST No.163/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, three months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Writ Petition No.15149/12. 28.9.2012 Shri Dharmendra Soni, 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 seeking direction and interference of this Court to direct the respondent no.3 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).to transfer the revenue case No.16-A/67/2011-12/1040, to the concerned Magistrate in pursuance of the provision of specified rule 18 of M.P.Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2006. (In short the Act).It is apparent that this petition is filed only against the show cause notice Annexure-P-1, issued by the authorities of the respondent no.3 and during the couRs.of arguments on admission I am apprised by the petitioners counsel that he has filed the reply of such show cause notice in the Office of the respondent no.3 and in such reply, besides the other objections he has also made a prayer to transfer the aforesaid ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »