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.
Bhumani Das Jha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15451/20121. 09.2012 Shri D.K.Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena versus State of M.P.& Others S.L.P.(Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controveRs.involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarificati...
Ashish Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15224/2012 21.09.2012 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions of Recruitment Rules known as M.P.Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1972 passing of Hindi Typing test was not the condition precedent for appointment. In view of this, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of increments from the date of initial appointment on the ground of not passing of Hindi Typing Test. The controveRs.involved in the case has already been put to rest by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P.And another versus Shakri Khan [(1996) 8 SCC 648].and subsequently the dispute has been decided by this Court on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court. Though the representation to this effect has been made by the petitioner, yet the same is not considered and the benefit is not extended to him...
Pyarelal Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.14644/2012 21.09.2012 Shri Akhilesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, 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 direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to implement the order of Tahsildar, dated 30.6.2012, (the part of Ann. P-2).whereby the parties of such revenue case have been restrained to make any new construction over the disputed land. On asking the petitioner's counsel under what provision of law he has right to take aforesaid direction from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then he could not show any provision in this regard. After going through papers on the record, I gathered the information that in pending proceeding of the revenue case the Tahsildar has issued the above mentioned interlocutory injunction. The same appears to be issued by virtue of Orde...
Ramesh Harijan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1900/1997 Ramesh Harijan VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Abhinav Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.8.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T.No.57/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month was directed.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased Laxmi Bai was admitted in the Nehru hospital, Burhanpur on 13.9.1994, a...
The State of M.P. Vs. Hiyaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.160/1997 Ajay Kumar and 3 others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.1.1997 passed by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST. No.123/1992 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323 of I.P.C (for the victims Manot Saini, Shiv Kumar and Tulsiram) and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one year and Section 452 of I.P.C and sentenced for two yea...
Swami Pranavanand Tourist Guide Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Review Petition No.561/2011 21.09.2012 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri V. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 13. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 once again prays for time to enable him to file reply. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, four weeks time is granted to respondents No.1 to 4 to file reply. Let the review petition be listed in the week commencing 29th October, 2012. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Adivasi Vikas Kamgar Samiti Mydt, Dhased, Vs. Joint Registrar Co-opera ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 W.P.No.14664/2012 Adivasi Vikas Kamgar Samiti versus Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies & ORS.21.09.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Shri R.K.Thakur learned counsel for respondent no.2, on caveat. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narbadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, whereby the petitioner's registration has been cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has taken up proceedings before the Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal but as the post of Chairman is vacant and the proceedings filed by the petitioner are pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court as no interim orders in favour of the petitioner has been passed by the Tribunal. The lear...
Satish Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 W.P.No.15413/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance copy. Petitioner claims regularization in service on the ground that he is working for a long time on daily wages in the department. Regularization is claimed in the light of the circulars issued by the State Government and in view of the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others versus Uma Devi & otheRs.2006(4) SCC 1. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is in service for more than 28 yeaRs.respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) decide the case of the petitioner for regularization within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K....
Ramagovind Singh Vs. Mahesh Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.A.No.1316/2011 Ramagovind Singh Mahesh Pratap Singh & others 21.9.2012 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, counsel for appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.11.2011, by which the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the S.D.O./Prescribed Authority in Election Petition No.42/A-89/09-10, dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the election petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no compliance of Rule 3(2) of M.P.Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. It is submitted that though the appellant had signed copy of the election petition served upon the respondents, but could not write 'True copy' above the signature. On this ground the election petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal. He has placed reliance to a Single Bench judgm...
The Chief Mechanical Engineer Vs. Durga Prasad Kewat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Review Petition No.691 o21. 09/2012 Shri Gaurav Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks review of order dated 21-06-2012 passed in Writ Petition No.2971/2010. It is urged by Shri Gaurav Dubey, learned counsel that earlier Shri Rajneesh Soni, Advocate was engaged by the Railways to defend them in Writ Petition No.2971/2010, however, subsequently, the Railways engaged him i.e.Shri Gaurav Dubey, as its counsel and though Vakalatnama was filed on 22-09-2011, but the same was not brought on record, as such his name was not reflected. It is accordingly urged that the name of Shri Gaurav Dubey, Advocate be mentioned in the order sheet dated 21-06-2012. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, we allow this application as it is Shri Gaurav Dubey, Advocate whose name ought to have been mentioned in the order dated 21- 06-2012. The order is corrected accordingly. Review Petition is finally disposed of in above terMs.C.C.as per ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »