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.
Ram Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 Cr. A. No.2207/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2207/1996 Ram Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Ramesh Kumar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 8th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.56/95, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for ten years R.I. with fine of the `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, an additional R.I. for six months.2. The prosecutions case in short is that on ...
Mishrilal Machiwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15694/20108. 10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned 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 mentioned ...
Brajendranath Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15641/20108. 10.2012 Shri Munendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitioners...
Govind Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohd. Shabbir Kha,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Govind Prasad Mishra versus Mohd. Shabbir Khan & Anr. 1 M.C.C.No.1016 8. 10.2012: Shri S.D.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of Conc. No.268/2012, which was dismissed for non-compliance with the peremptory order passed by this Court. There being some delay in filing this application, therefore, I.A.No.9988/2012 has been filed for condoning the delay. Delay in filing the application as well as default itself is attributed to some lapses on the part of counsel and applications are supported by affidavit of the counsel and there is no reason to disbelieve its bonafide. Considering the same both the applications, i.e.application for condonation of delay and restoration application itself, are allowed. Delay is condoned and Conc. No.268/2012 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before an Appropriate Bench. Application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Ramesh Dutt Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.16767/2012 08.10.2012 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. A similar writ petition bearing No.13196/2009 has been decided by this Court and in the said case following orders are passed. The judgment reads as under :- A similar writ petition bearing No.8575/2009 has been decided by this Court and in the said case following orders were passed :- The sole relief which, the petitioners seek in the present petition is direction to the respondents to decide the representation regarding higher grade pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are employed as Assistant Teachers in School Education Department and though they are entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- they are being paid pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-. It is submitted that though representation for higher pay scale was made to the Competent Authority, but...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Subhash Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
W.P.No.15336 o08. 10.12 Shri R.S.Yadav, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.12 passed II Civil Judge-II, Katni in C.S.No.229-A/08 whereby his application filed under Order 26 rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the disputed place and submit its report, has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner counsel on admission but in the couRs.of such arguments on asking the counsel how the petitioner could be permitted to use the process of the court as an agency for him to collect the evidence through Commissioner unless some ambiguity appears from the evidence led by the parties, on which, instead to argue further, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty to file fresh application for spot inspect after recording the evidence of both the...
Kesri Alias Kariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8930/2012 8/10/2012 Shri Sharad Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL 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 5/04/12 in connection with Crime No.192/12 registered at P.S.Itarsi, District Hoshangabad for the offence punishable under sections 452, 323/34 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that except the offence u/s 452 of IPC, all other offences are triable by Magistrate. 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 offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore,...
Ashok Upadhayay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.C.C.No.982/2012 (Ashok Upadhya versus State of M.P.& ors.) 08.10.2012 Heard Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application for restoration of W.P.No.11135/2011, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.08.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he could not go through the cause list, as a result of which he missed the case resulting into its dismissal and on this count he prayed for restoration. It is however, apparent from a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner that the petitioner has assailed the auction notice for auction of a mine situated on KhaSr.No.184 and 185, area 1.5 acres of village Bijadeh Khilsari, Tahsil Pawai, District Panna, which was published on 03.06.2011 fixing the date of auction on 13.06.2011, on which date the petitioner had filed an objection to the auction proceedings. On a perusal of the aforesaid statements, made by the petitioner in...
Tara Bai Barman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15695/20108. 10.2012 Shri Manot Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Petitioner's husband was working as daily rated Choukidar in the establishment of respondents. He worked from 20.11.1987 to 22.06.2005. Petitioner is claiming compassionate allowance in accordance to the circulars and policies of the State Government. According to the circular of the State Government dated 16.08.2010, certain amount known as 'compassionate allowance' is extended to the employees who are daily wages employees and after their death to the legal heiRs.Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance in accordance to the policy and circular within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesai...
Akhilesh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
1 M.C.C.No.1168/20108. 10.2012 Shri Vinayak Prasad Saraf, Advocate, for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of Writ Appeal No.985/2012 which was dismissed in default on 3.9.2012 because the counsel of the applicant had not appeared in spite of seeking men- tion memo for the aforesaid date. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, we find it appropriate to allow the application but on following terms :_ i) the applicant to deposit Rs.200/- in the library fund of the High Court Bar Association within a period of 3 working days and to file an acknowledgement in the of- fice within the aforesaid period. ii) If the aforesaid order is complied with, office to re- store the Writ Appeal No.985/2012 to its original num- ber and to place before appropriate bench for considera- tion failing which the earlier order shall stand. M.C.C.is finally disposed of with no order as to cost. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge HS...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »