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.
Teju Lal Yadav Vs. Shri Sevaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Tejulal Yadav versus Shri Sevaram & ORS.Con.C.No.932/2009 30/10/2012 Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the non-applicants. Keeping in view the compliance report submitted by the non- applicants and taking note of the fact that the non-applicants have granted the fiRs.kramonnati to the applicant on completing 12 years of service, not no case is made out for initiating action for contempt on the ground that the second kramonnati has not been granted to the applicant. The order passed in the writ petition was only to the effect that the claim of the applicant be considered as per scheme, there was no direction to grant both the kramonnati on completing 12 years and 24 years of service, therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt. Merely because the claim of the petitioner for grant of second kramonnati has not been considered, the action for contempt cannot be initiated. Accordingly, grant...
Anita Alias Saraswati Bai Vs. Prafulia Jaiswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Criminal Appeal No.1430/2012 29.10.2012 Shri N.P.Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Harpeet Ruphrah, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on admission. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11/12/2007 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act.).Initially the appellant had filed an FIR before the Police Station ItaRs.on 14.3.2003 that on that day the respondents held her and tried to outrage her modesty by using a criminal force, and therefore a case of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act was registered against the respondents. After due investigation a final report was submitted and it was found that there was a civil dispute between the respondents and one Smt. Durgesh B...
Parasram Vs. Santosh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(1) S.A.No.97/2001 HIGH COURT OF M.P.PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava Second Appeal No.97/2001 Appellant Parasram Dubey, S/o. Guruprasad Defendant alias Gola Maharaj, R/o. Nehru Ward (Bargawan).Tehsil Katni District Jabalpur. versus Respondent Santosh Kumar, S/o. Radhika Plaintiff Prasad Paroha, Occupation resident of Village Amkuhi, Tehsil Katni, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ______________________________________________ Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Divesh Jain, Advocate for respondent. ______________________________________________ Date of hearing :13. 9/2012 Date of judgment :30. 10/2012 JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 30th day of October, 2012) For the reasons stated in FiRs.Appeal No.94/1998 (Parasram Dubey v. Santosh & Anr.) there is (2) S.A.No.97/2001 no merit in this appeal. Apart from this, since I have already held that the transaction between the parties was not a mortgage but an outright sale, therefore, the substanti...
Prakash Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1...W.A.No.875 of 2011 Prakash Singh Thakur State of M.P.& otheRs.30.10.2012 Shri D.D.Bhargawa, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G.for the respondents. This order shall decide W.A.No.875 of 2011, W.A.903 of 2011, W.A.No.915 of 2011 and R.P.No.427 of 2011 in which a common question of law is involved for the consideration of this Court. For the convenience facts are taken from W.A.No.875 of 2011 (Prakash Singh Thakur versus State of M.P.and others).All the appellants/petitioners are suffering sentence for life under Section 302 IPC alongwith some more provisions under the IPC. It is also not in dispute that these persons have not completed actual sentence of 14 years and before completion of the aforesaid period, they have applied for their premature release under the provisions of M.P.Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act.).The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Rule 4 of M.P.Prisoners Release on Probat...
Ramphal Jhariya Vs. Karanlal Jhariya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.17007 o30. 10.2012 Shri N.K.Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, counsel for respondent No.8 on advance copy. Issue notice against admission of this petition to the respondents No.1 to 7. P.F along with requisites of the registered post be submitted within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. Notices be made returnable within six weeks. As an interim measure, till next hearing of this petition, the private parties of this petition are directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of possession of the disputed property as it exists today. C.C as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Jeevanlal Chouhan Vs. Ashish Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Jeevanlal Chouhan versus Ashish Upadhyay Con.C.No.1288/2009 30/10/2012 Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1. From the records, it is seen that the respondents have submitted a compliance report on 22.9.2012 in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 24.8.2012 and in the compliance report, it is indicated that orders Annexure-AR/1 has been passed on 30th of July, 2012 with regard to pay fixation of the applicant and, thereafter, the Principal of the Institute vide Annexure-AR/2 has forwarded the claim to the Assistant Director Local Fund Audit for making necessary payments and grant of approval. In view of the above, the office of Assistant Director Local Fund Audit, Burhanpur is directed to settle the claim of the applicant in accordance with the pay fixation done and submit a report to this Court indicating the action taken and the payments made to the applicant on the basis of the claim fo...
M/S Raj Homes Pvt. Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Writ Appeal No.756/2012 30.10.2012 Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the writ court, an order passed by the City Planner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal dated 20.04.2010 was under challenge. Against the said order appellant herein had also preferred an appeal before the State Government i.e.Principal Secretary, Urban Administration and that appeal was pending at the time of filing of writ petition. The learned Single Judge considering this aspect disposed of the matter with liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal, which was already availed by appellant. It was submitted that after filing of this appeal, the Principal Secretary has passed an order but has not considered all the contentions of the appellant, so the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to assail the aforesaid order by filing a fresh petition. As this appeal is at pre-admission stage, the Single Bench considered th...
Vinod @ Arvind Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
AFR JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.530/2001 ViNo.@ Arvind Vs. State of M.P. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Imtiaz Husain, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2001 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Act'), Jabalpur in Special Case No.708/2000, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1)/511 of IPC and sentenced for five year's R.I. with fine of `5,000/- and one ...
Mewalal Vs. Rameshwar [D] Lrs Rampal Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.11623 o30. 10.2012 Shri J.P.Dhimole, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents although served and represented through duly engaged counsel as reflected from the cause list. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. On payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within three working days, fresh notice of aforesaid admission, returnable in the month of January,2012, be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Case be listed for further orders on the date which is so mentioned on the aforesaid notices. The interim order passed earlier is hereby continued till next hearing of this petition. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Smt.Chandrakali Soni Vs. Vishram Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 F.A. No.460/2005 30.10.2012 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for appellant. Shri N.K. Salunke, learned counsel for respondent. Appellant and respondents are also present. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Satna; whereby, an application under Section 25 of the Act, 1955 filed by the appellant seeking permanent alimony has been dismissed. Having married in the year 1962, the couple stayed together till 1980, out of the wedlock a girl daughter was borne which has since been married. After 1980, the appellant and respondent started living separately. In the year 1999 the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance. The matter was amicably settled on 7.4.2000, when on a joint application moved by appellant and respondent whereon the respondent was required to pay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »