Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Arman Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2040 OF 200.Arman Ali. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anand Naik, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of October, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7/10/2009 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.236/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Fine Default U/S (IPC) (Rupees) sentenc7. years' RI 1000/- RI for 2 month2. years' RI 500/- RI for 1 mont3. years' RI 1000/- RI for 2 months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that th...
Mahendra Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1088/1997 Mahendra Kumar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Siddharth Datt, counsel for the appellants. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the objector. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30th day of October, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.1997 passed by the 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.51/96, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/- and in defa...
Smt. Prabha JaIn Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR First Appeal No.412/2012 Smt. Prabha Jain...Appellant Versus Central Bank of India and others.Respondents For the appellant : Shri Anand Kumar Jain, Advocate For respondent : Shri Abhijit C.Thakur, Advocate nos. 1 and 2. For respondent : None, though served nos. 3,4,5 and 6. For respondent : Shri S.P.S.Rai, Government Advocate No.7. Present : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV . ORDER (30.10.2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.This plaintiffs appeal is against the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.37-A/2011 whereby he has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land was purchased by her late father-in-law vide sale deed dated 19.6.1967 and after his death on 15.8.2005 the same was inherited in equal shares by her late husband Mahendra Kumar Jain,...
R.N.Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
WRIT PETITION No.19911/20130. 10.2012 Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Though a return has been filed by the respondents indicating that on earlier occasion no recommendation was made for grant of out of turn promotion to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, but the subsequent recommendation was made on 19th October, 2006, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chhatarpur Range. However, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner has taken active part in the incident for which recommendations were made for grant of out of turn promotion to two Constables and in respect of whom the orders have been issued in the month of September, 2009. It is also clear from the return and the documents filed along with it that some Magisterial enquiry was conducted with respect to the incident and a report was submitted before the District Magistrate. All these facts are...
Mukesh JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Writ Petition No.12135/12. 31.10.2012 Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State- respondents no.1, 3 & 4. None for the respondents no.2 & 5. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel and appointed Commissioner of the matter is also present in person. This case is taken up today out of its turn from the list of not reached cases because vide order dated 16.10.2012, the Commissioner was directed to submit his Commissioner report till today. Said Commissioner Shri Sameer Seth Advocate, submits that he has not been served with the Commissioner Warrant and that is why, he could not execute the Commission and prepared the report to submit before the Court. In view of such submission of the Commissioner, I have carefully gone through all the Office notes stated at the back side of the order sheets as well as in second part of the file. I have not found any copy of the Commissioner Warrant or endorsement in that regard showing th...
Nirmala Raikwar Vs. the Chief General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :4767. of 2010 Nirmala Raikwar - V/s - State of MP and Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anubhav Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 30/10/2012 Challenging the order-dated 11.8.2007 passed by the respondent/bank rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and granting liberty to the petitioner to seek ex-gratia in accordance to a scheme formulated by the Bank in the matter of granting compassionate appointment vide policy dated 4.8.2005, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2- Facts in brief, which are relevant, goes to indicate that petitioners husband Late Shri Suresh Kumar Raikwar was working as a Me...
Abid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1778/2009 Abid VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vikas Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara in S.T.No.18/2008, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC, whereas no separate sentence was directed for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 29.10.2...
In Reference Vs. Kamta Prasad Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
In Reference - Vs - Kamta Prasad Soni 30.10.2012. On 2.5.2011, Writ Petition No.14160/2009 was disposed of on a prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the case of the petitioner is covered by an order passed under similar circumstances in Writ Petition No.6826/2008, on 14.5.2010. Accepting the aforesaid proposition of the petitioner, Writ Petition No.14160/2009 was disposed of. However, subsequently it was brought to the notice of this Court that prior to filing of Writ Petition No.14160/2009, petitioner Kamta Prasad Soni had earlier filed another petition bearing W.P.No.4022/2009(S) [Kamta Prasad versus State of MP and 5 others].and the said petition was dismissed. Taking note of all these factORS.this petition has been registered and a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and his counsel asking them as to why contempt action should not be initiated against them and the order passed on 2.5.2011, in original Writ Petition No.14160/2009 be not re...
Abhay Kant Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.4990/2012 30.10.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5. This Court has passed the order on 29.06.2012 and reiterated the directions on 24.09.2012, only because the statements were made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5. Today, it is complained that the orders passed by this Court have not been complied with in appropriate manner. Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for a week's time to seek instructions with respect to the compliance and to make a submission in this respect. List this petition in the week commencing 19th November, 2012. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Arun Prakash Dubey Vs. Sailendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Arun Prakash Dubey versus Sailendra Singh Con.C.No.1043/2012 30/10/2012 Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for non-applicant. As the grievance of the applicant is that his seniority has still not been fixed properly, the same is continuing action and, therefore, the application should not be rejected on the ground of delay. The delay in filing the application is condoned. Respondent to indicate to this Court as to whether seniority of the applicant has been fixed above Respondent Nos.4 & 5 mentioned in the original writ petition i.e.Shri Prem Narayan Gupta and Shri Ambarish Kumar Khare as is evident from the order Annexure-C1 and as to what action has to be taken in this regard. Let necessary submission be made by the next week. A copy of this order be given to Shri Pranay Choubey for necessary compliance. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »