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.
Suresh Chandra Mod Vs. Ganesh Prasad Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
F.A. No.387/1996 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.387/1996 .....APPELLANT Suresh Chandra Mod, s/o Shri Defendant Ramchandra Mod, Resident of Lokhartalai Road, Tahsil Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad -Versus- ....RESPONDENTS:1. Smt. Savitri Bai widow of Late Shri Plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Sharma, 2. Ashok Kumar s/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, 3. Anil Kumar s/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma 4. Manot Kumar s/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma 5. Krishnakant s/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma Defendant No.2 6. State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Hoshangabad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.6/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing :09. 10.2012 Date of Judgm...
Bhensu Uike Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9916/2012 11/10/2012 Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 30/05/12 in connection with Crime No.138/12 registered at P.S.Damua, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that prosecutrix is sister-in-law of applicant. She is more than 16 years of age. It is submitted that prosecutrix has not sustained any injury on her body therefore, she may be a consenting party. Trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of al...
Kunjanlal Raikwar Vs. M.P.State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.7970/2008 11.10.2012 Shri N. Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. I.A.No.11413/2012 has been filed for taking certain additional facts on record on behalf of respondents. Considering the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The facts are taken on record. The only controveRs.involved in this writ petition is that the petitioner, an employee of the respondents, was convicted in a Criminal Case and on account of his conviction, he was dismissed from the services by the respondents. No independent enquiry was conducted by the respondents before issuing the order of dismissal of the petitioner, he was simply dismissed because of the conviction. Against the judgment of conviction, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner before this Court, which came to be decided on 28.3.2006, completely acquitting the petitioner holding that there was no evidence available on record to hold that the petitioner has ...
Praveen Pandya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.10291/2008 11.10.2012 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3. Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after hearing for some time the learned Government Advocate, it transpires that the matter is to be resolved only if an attempt is made by the respondents/State to resolve the dispute by considering the cases for promotion with retrospective effect of all the candidates including the petitioner, in terms of the relevant Rules. Learned Government Advocate submits that instead of passing the final order in this writ petition, he may be allowed some time to seek instructions and to apprise this Court whether the respondents/State would be ready to undertake such an exercise referred to hereinabove. List in the week commencing 26th November, 2012. Certified copy as per rules. ...
Ganpat Singh Chouhan and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.7160 / 2002 (Ganpat Singh Chouhan & two others ..Vs..State of M.P.and otheRs.11-10-2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Shri Abhishek Tiwari, for the petitioneRs.Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-3-2002 proposing to take over the Primary School Vidya Mandir and absorbing the petitioners as Samvida Shala Shikshak. During the pendency of the petition petitioners No.2 and 3 have died. As far as the claim of the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the respondents have filed a return wherein it is stated that subsequent to passing of the impugned order, the State Government had issued a clarificatory order dated 29-7-2002, Annexure R-1, whereby the words 'kkluk/khu djrs gq;s. that were mentioned in the order, dated 22-3-2002 have been deleted and on that count it is stated in the return that the concerned school has in fact not been taken over by the State Government but has o...
Deepak and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1138 OF 199.Deepak & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.C.Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 11th day of October, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 12/7/1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in ST No.193/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they were to undergo ...
Karan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.A.No.994/2012 11.10.2012 Smt. Smita Arora, Learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard on the question of admission. This intra-court appeal challenges the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11161/2012. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant at the relevant time was posted as Constable at Sagar District and was transferred vide order dated 14.7.2012 to the adjoining Chhatarpur Distirct. The appellant challenged the said order of transfer on the ground of personal inconvenience, and on the ground that at his present place of posting he was senior. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the order of transfer cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of personal inconvenience. and that due to transfer the appellants seniority was not being affected. We have heard learned c...
Saurabh Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9918/2012 11/10/2012 Shri Manish Datt with Shri Himanshu Chourasiya, Advocates for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 3/07/12 in connection with Crime No.365/12 registered at P.S.Kamla Nagar, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 171 and 406/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that if any amount of PPF has not been paid by applicant, the same point may raised before the competent court by concerning employees. It is submitted that initially a security agency was established by S.P.S.Shekhawat and Arjun Singh and the same was handed over to this applicant. The matter is interrogated. Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of this applicant. Charge shee...
Mubeen Muhammed Khan Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.14423/2012 11-10-2012 Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent No.3. Shri B.N.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Inter alia contending that certain representations filed by the petitioner is not being considered and decided, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that petitioner was working as a Law Assistant in the establishment of Central Railway. He was promoted as a Chief Law Assistant and appeared in the selection process conducted by the M.P.Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Class 2. He was selected and therefore, he submitted a resignation in the Railway Department in the year 2008 and joined on the post of Civil Judge Class 2. It is a case of the petitioner that after joining the judicial service he withdrew his resignation from the Railway administration and went back to the Railway Department. not he wants to come back and resume his duties as a ...
Surya Bio Tec Products Vs. the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
W.P.No.17280/2012 (Surya Bio Tec Products versus The Commandant and otheRs.12.10.2012 Heard Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/authorities have delivered the material less than the actual quantity purchased by the petitioner and are not reimbursing or delivering the short material to the petitioner though the petitioner has issued a notice through its advocate on 24.07.2012. The dispute raised by the petitioner apparently relates to several disputed questions of fact which can only be decided in a civil suit. Moreso, the matter is purely contractual, therefore, I find no reason to entertain the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up remedy available to it under law for mitigation of its grievance. With the aforesaid liberty, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »