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.
Mrs Shakuntala Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
MRS.Shakuntala Sahu. versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16406 28. 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 claims 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...
Komal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
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.692 OF 200.Komal Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.N.Shukla, 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 4/3/2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol in ST No.148/2007, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506(B) and 376 of IPC and sentenced for three months' RI, one year's RI and ten years' RI, with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that...
Makhan Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2053/1996 Makhan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.11.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in ST. No.74 of 1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C and Sections 5 read with Section 9B(1)(a) of the Explosives Act and sentenced for 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. In defaul...
Om Prakash Vs. Rama
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.15204 o28. 09.2012 Shri B.R.Vijaywar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioneRs.counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners-defendants have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 9.7.2012, (Ann. P-9) passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Betul in C.S.No.3-A/12, whereby the application of the respondents filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the suit for the relief of possession and mandatory injunction has been allowed. PetitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the petition as well as papers placed on record argued that initially the suit, (Ann. P-1) was filed by the respondents - plaintiffs for perpetual injunction and not for any other relief but in pendency of the suit when they could not get success in getting the interlocutory injunction against the petitioneRs.then the aforesaid application to insert the pleadings to claim possession and mandatory injunction was filed. In conti...
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi Vs. District Project Coordinator Rajiv Gandi Shiks ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi versus District Project Coordinator & ORS.Review Petition No.654 28. 9.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Seeking review/recall of an order dated 5.7.2012 passed in W.P.No.5720/2002 petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi was petitioner in the said writ petition, whereas respondent Nos.5 & 6 namely Shri Rudra Pratap Parmar and Shri Ram Bahadur Tripathi were petitioners in W.P.No.4818/2002, both these petitions were decided on 5.7.2012. Rudra Pratap Parmar and Ram Bahadur Tripathi were appointed as Guruji in the year 1999, both of them started working, however while so working in the year 2002 i.e.on 9.8.2002 their services were terminated without issuing any show-cause notice and without granting any opportunity. After terminating the services of both these persons the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi was appointed. It was the case of Shri Rudra Pratap Parmar and Shri Ram Bahadur Tripathi that their termination...
Dal Chand Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.12084/2012 (D.C.Soni versus State of M.P.& ors.) 28.09.2012 Heard Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the fiRs.appellate authority before whom it is alleged that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed by the authority under the Right to Information Act, by which documents sought by the petitioner have been refused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending since long, therefore a direction be issued to the fiRs.appellate authority to decide the appeal. From a perusal of the petition it is apparent that the fiRs.appellate authority by its order dated 29.12.2011 had asked the petitioner to furnish certain information and specify the documents sought for, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that after compliance of the same by the petitioner what step...
Dr. Rvai Agarwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Health ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.13106/2012 (Dr. Ravi Agrawal versus State of M.P.& ors.) 28.09.2012 Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application submitted before the State under the provisions of M.P.Saha Chikitisiy Parishad Adhiniyam, 2000 for registration of the petitioner as a Physiotherapist is not being considered by the respondent authorities though the petitioner has applied for the same and therefore, the respondent authorities be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for registration under the aforesaid Adhiniyam. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the application of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direct...
Brajesh Kumar Gattani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.12348/2012 (Brajesh Kumar Gattani versus State of MP and otheRs.28.09.2012 Heard Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner has filed a complaint in respect of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and private respondents regarding some land property. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed...
Dr. Sudha JaIn Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 W.P.No.16378/2012 Dr. Sudha Jain & 16 others versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.09.2012 Shri Hemant Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by various orders passed by respondent no.3, Estate Officer, M.P.Housing Construction and Infrastructure Development Board, Bhopal, Annexures P-39 and the decision of the committee Annexures P-38, whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit the price of land and houses allotted to them at highly enhanced rate which is 300% more than the original price. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had infact applied for and had been allotted houses in the year 2007 at the price prevalent at the relevant time subject to reasonable escalation. However, at the time of delivery of possession, after completion of construction,...
Raghvendra Prasad Ojha Vs. Kamal Singh Gond
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.No.1154/12. 28.09.2012 Mrs.A.Ruprah, Advocate for appellant. Heard on IA No.9565/12, an application for extension of time. Learned counsel for appellant submits that by Order dated 15.5.12 this Court ordered the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- within a period of 60 days, meaning thereby the amount was to be deposited on or before 15.07.12. Counsel submits that the amount was deposited by the appellant on 1.8.12 and thereby some delay was caused in depositing the amount. IA No.9565/12 is allowed. Time is extended up to 1.8.12 to deposit the amount. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the record. Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for appellant submits that she has already filed PF by both modes. Office is directed to issue notice to respondents on the PF already paid. IR dated 15.5.12 to continue till the final decision of this appeal or until otherwise ordered by this Court. C.c.as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »