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.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Sen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16017 o10. 10.2012 Shri T.S.Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- Insurance Co.has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2012 (Ann. P-3) passed by the IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in MACT Case No.98/09 whereby its application filed under 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside exparte order has been dismissed but by permitting the petitioner to join and contest the matter at further stage of the case. Initially the petitioner's counsel after taking me through the petition as well as papers placed on record, argued that in the lack of proper communication from one office to another office of the petitioner the appearance could not be given on behalf of the petitioner in the matter. Pursuant to it, it was proceeded exparte. When aforesaid situation was known to the petitioner institution, the impugned application under Order 9, Rule 7 of CPC ...
Rajendra Charmkar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.2264/2000 Rajendra Charmkar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.S.Baghel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 10th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.8.2000 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T.No.129/1999, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months' rigorous imprisonment was also directed in addition.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.3.1999, at about 8-9 p.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.5) was ...
Bhagwandas Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
WRIT PETITION No.7361/20110. 10.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions ...
Awadh Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.15769/12 (I).10.10.2012 Shri Neeraj Ashar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-Barrower of the respondent, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to extent him the period to deposit the sum of such loan amount. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent that such authority shall not take any action against the petitioner to recover the sum in compliance of the demand notice dated 24.8.2012, is also made. Having heard the counsel, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority of the respondent- Bank to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P-5) in accordance with the prescribed procedure within 30 days from ...
Vinayak Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.15487/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Dhananjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rohni Prasad Dwivedi versus State of M.P and otheRs.(W.P.No.17127/2003) decided by this Court on 6.1.2004. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner is identical to that of Rohni Prasad Dwivedi (supra)and similar directions may be issued. Having considered the aforesaid pleadings, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for issuance of PPO computing his pension and other pensionary benefits in the light of the order of this Court passed in the case of Rohni Prasad Dwivedi (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order passed today. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the s...
Suresh Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16853/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the petitioners that Class-IV employees, who have obtained education upto the Higher Secondary and have passed the Hindi Typing test are required to be promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-III as was ordered by the State Government way back in the year 1996. However, the claim of the petitioners is not being considered even when a representation is made, the present writ petition is required to be filed. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners in the petition, the case of petitioner is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jugresh Kumar Namdeo versus State of M.P and otheRs.(W.P.No.7726/2004) decided by this Court on 4.10.2004. The order passed in the said case indicates that a person working in Class-IV post, was seeking promotion on the next higher post only because there w...
Sanjay Tambe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
sanjay tambe versus state W.P.No.17308/2012 10-10-2012 Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in Janpad Panchayat, Ashta, District Sehore. Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 petitioner was transferred from Ashta, District Sehore to District Balaghat. Challenge to the order of transfer was made by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.11519/2012 (s) and a Bench of this Court vide Annexure P/7 dated 7.8.2012 found that the transfer is not vitiated and no interference is called for. Finding the petitioner can approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance, liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation. Representation submitted by the petitioner is also rejected and therefore, the petitioner is again before this Court. As already indicated herein above in the earlier writ petition, this Court has already ref...
Molamudha and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.730/1999 Mola Mudha and 3 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellants : Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 10th day of October, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.3.1999 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST. No.23 of 1998 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part II) of I.P.C or 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 18.7.1997 the deceased Ramratan alo...
V.K. Agrawal(Virendra Kumar Agrawal) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9218/2012 M.Cr.C.No.9973/2012 10/10/2012 Shri Ashish Tiwari and Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the State. As these applications are arising out of the same crime number therefore, they are being decided by this common order. Heard finally. These are the fiRs.bail applications filed by applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.664/12, registered at police station Kolgawan, District Satna for the offence punishable under section 420/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal past. At the relevant time, the applicant no.1 V.K.Agrawal was the then Executive Officer of Antyavasayee Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Satna and applicant no.2 Ram Avtar Tripathi was owner of Tractor Agency running in the name of Hari Om TractORS.It is further submitted that...
Amit Bajaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1 W.P.No.17148/2012 Amit Bajaj versus State of M.P.& ORS.10.10.2012 Heard Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging certain sale of property alleged to belong to the petitioner through a false and fabricated Power of Attorney by respondent nos.7 & 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's property has been sold by respondent nos.7 & 8 in collusion but inspite of a complaint being filed before the police, no action is being taken. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the dispute involved in the present petition is purely civil in nature and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies provided under law i.e.the CPC or the CrPC, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »