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.
Harvind Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1518/2011 Harvind Singh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri B.J.Chourasiya, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T.No.40/2011, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 31.8.2010, at about 6 p.m. in the evening, the victim Mang...
Ramsunder Singh and ors. Vs. Ramsajeevan and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 F.A. 396/2000 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA F.A. No.396/2000 .........Appellants:1. Ram Sunder Singh (since deceased) Defendants 2 to 4 not by LRs: (a) Smt. Jaimanti Singh Gond w/o Late Shri Ram Sunder Gond, R/o Village Bharatpur, Block Development Ram Nagar, District Satna (M.P.) (b) Shri Rampal Singh Gond s/o Late Shri Ram Sunder Gond, R/o Village Bharatpur, Block Development Ram Nagar, District Satna (M.P.) (c) Shri Ram Prasad Singh Gond s/o Late Shri Ram Sunder Gond, R/o Village Bharatpur, Block Development Ram Nagar, District Satna (M.P.) 2. Motilal Singh, s/o Shri Devi Singh Gond, R/o Bharatpur, Police Station Ramnagar, Tahsil Amarpatan, District Satna (not Tehsil New Ramnagar, District Satna.3. Mohan Singh, s/o Shri Devi Singh Gond, R/o Bharatpur, Police Station Ramnagar, Tehsil Amarpatan, District Satna (not Tehsil New Ramnagar, District Satna). Versus .........Respondents 1. Ram Sajeewan s/o Shri Mundu Patel, by : o...
Rajendra Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Rajendra Kumar Pathak versus State of MP and otheRs.04.10.2012. Shri Anirudh Pandey for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 petitions succeeds and ...
Hari Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 W.P.No.338/07 (s) 4/10/12 Shri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. During the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by the State Govt. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner along with one Shri Rajkumar Tiwari were proceeded against. A departmental enquiry was conducted and based on the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, both petitioner and Shri Rajkumar Tiwari were dismissed from service. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. Challenging the action, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is not stated that after the writ petition was filed in the year 2007, the other employee constable Shri Rajkumar Tiwari filed a mercy petition before the Stat...
Jawahar Lal Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.9896/2005 Jawaharlal Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Others Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri N.S. Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Gaurav Tiwari, Advocate. ORDER (04.10.2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.06.2005, passed by the Registrar, M.P. Pharmacy Council, Bhopal, respondent No.2, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requesting for registration as a Pharmacist.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind as the petitioner 2 apparently possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed under Section 31 of the Act, inasmuch as he possesses the certificate for qualifying the examination of Compounder issued by the Government of M.P. (Annexure P-6) and the requisite experience of h...
Tribhuvan Meshram Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.5101/2009) Tribhuvan Meshram and others Vs. Union of India and others PRESENT : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for petitioner Shri S. Chakravarty, Advocate Counsel for Respondents Shri S.A. Dharmadhiari, Advocate O R D E R (4/10/2012) The following order of the Court was delivered by Sanjay Yadav, J : Order dated 7.1.2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur is being assailed vide this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby claim for Second Upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme has been declined.2. That, in furtherance to the recommendation by Fifth Central Pay Commission and with certain modification, with an object to ameliorate the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the Central Government employees, Government of India, Ministry ...
Rajesh Bisaria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
W.P.No.2135/2007 04.10.2012 Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The reliance is placed by the petitioner on a Notification issued by the Governot of the State in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India making the provisions for counting of the period of services rendered in different departments and regularising the period of absence/break. It is contended by the petitioner that since he was appointed earlier in the Corporation owned and controlled by the State Government, as per the law made, his previous services were to be counted after his appointment in the services of the State Government. The return has been filed placing a reliance in the circular issued by the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 26.9.1972. It has to be explained by the respondents whether such law made by the Governot in exercise of his legislative power under Article 309 of the Con...
Arvind Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Arvind Kumar Verma & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16213 4. 10.2012: Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Keeping in view the averments made by the State Government in para 6 of the affidavit filed indicating that the State Government, after taking note of the discrepancy appearing in the qualification mentioned in impugned advertisement and the guidelines issued by the Government of India, will issue a corrigendum to bring the same in accordance to the guidelines, no further orders are required to be passed. In view of above it is not necessary not for this Court to proceed further in the matter. Respondents may proceed with the process of selection. Thereafter liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the same afresh in accordance to law, if required. With the aforesaid, for the present, finding no case for proceeding further in the matter the writ petition is disposed ...
Smt. Sushma Raghuvanshi Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.12159/2009 03.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. The office has reported that the envelops sent to the respondents for service of notice of this writ petition have not been received back not any acknowledgment of service is received. As per the order of this Court, the notices were sent to the respondents by registered post on 21.12.2009. In view of the aforesaid, as per the High Court Rules and OrdeRs.service of notices on respondents is treated to be good. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents is directed to seek instructions and file a return within four weeks, failing which the petition would be heard without the return. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, (M.P.) Vs. M/S Pradeep Kumar Malan ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
I.T.A.No.12/2011 03.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstacnes of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- being the returned undisclosed income of the assessee, particularly when the assessee has failed to explain the nature of such undisclosed income and the year to which it related to?. Be listed for hearing along with I.T.A.No.64/2009, as prayed by Shri Sanjay Lal. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm...
- ‹ Prev
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- Next ›
- Last »