Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Gajraj Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1887/1996 Gajraj Singh & 7 Others versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Counsel for the appellants : Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. Counsel for the respondent/State: Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Present : Honble Mr.Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (21.11.2 012) The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of amount of fine rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellants have also been convicted for offences under Section 332/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of amount of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellants No.1 to 7 have also been convicted for offences under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and ...
Prashant Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 W.P.No.17902/2012 Prashant Kumar Gupta & Anot versus State of M.P.& ORS.21.11.2012 Heard Shri Deepak Okhade learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for police protection on account of the fact that they have entered into an intercaste marriage. It is, however, apparent from a perusal of the petition and the documents filed alongwith the same that there is no threat to the petitioners either from the respondent no.4 or anybody not have the petitioners filed any complaint in this regard before the police authorities. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petition has been filed by the petitioners only on apprehension without their being any substance in the same. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioneRs.as and when occasion arises, may approach the police authorities. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Khubchand @ Kubbi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1816/2010 Criminal Appeal No.1938/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1816/2010 Khubchand @ Kubbi and four others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.1938/2010 Devendra @ Kabli Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of November, 2012) Both the criminal appeals aros...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Eastern Gases 26-a/Nadir Colony
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 MAIT No.122/2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal M/s Eastern Gases, Bhopal 21.11.2012 Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for appellant. This case has been taken up as per directions issued by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.22822/2010 in the matter of CIT-5 versus M/s Eastern Gases by which the Apex Court has directed thus:- Heard learned counsel for the Department. Delay condoned. After passing of the impugned order, the Parliament has amended the law vide Finance Act No.14 of 2010. In the circumstances, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the question of condonation of delay in the light of the amended law. We make it clear that the Department will take out Notice of Motion within eight weeks from today and will satisfy the High Court that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is, however, made clear that if the Department fails to take out Notice of Motion within eight weeks from today, then the matter will not be conside...
Devendra @ Kabli Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1816/2010 Criminal Appeal No.1938/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1816/2010 Khubchand @ Kubbi and four others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.1938/2010 Devendra @ Kabli Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of November, 2012) Both the criminal appeals aros...
Seema Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Pokhra Vs. the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
W.P.No 19155/2012 (Seema Mahila Swa- Sahayata Samooh versus State of MP and otheRs.21.11.2012 Heard Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa in Case No.15/Revision/2012-13 whereby the Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Collector, Sidhi dated 16.10.2012 wherein the application for stay filed by the respondent No.6 had been rejected and has remitted the matter back to the Collector with a direction to decide the pending case within two months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner who was respondent No.1 in the aforesaid revisional proceedings and the respondent No.6 has been permitted to continue with the work of supply of mid-day-meals without properly appreciating the fa...
Smt. Har Bai Ahirwar (Sc) Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Smt. Har Bai Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.21.11.2012. Shri Pranay Verma for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Teacher and in her capacity as an Assistant Teacher petitioner was granted charge of Hostel Superintendent of a Tribal Hostel. Petitioner has been transferred from one school to another and the charge of Hostel Superintendent is taken away and granted to respondent No.5 and she is before this Court assailing the said action. Having heard Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Teacher and she is posted back to her substantive post on administrative consideration. Petitioner has no right to claim continuation as a Hostel Superintendent. It seems that whenever petitioner was shifted from the said post, she had been a...
Ashish Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Ashish Verma versus state of m.p.1 W.P.No.8977/2004 21/11/2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is a person belonging to the "Majhi" caste which is a Scheduled Tribe category and had sought appointment on the post of Forest Guard in a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. Petitioner along with the documents submitted produced a temporary caste certificate issued and was granted appointment. However, on the ground that petitioner has not produced the permanent caste Certificate, his services were terminated in the year 2004 and therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Challenge to the order of termination is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has produced the temporary caste certificate and as the permanent caste certificate with regard to persons belonging "Majhi" Community is not being issued by the competent authority, on such ground services of the petitioner could not be t...
Executive Engineer Madhya Pradesh Grah Nirman Mandal Vs. Narendra Kuma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 F.A.595/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA F.A.No.595/2012 .........Appellant: Executive Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Grah Nirman Mandal, Project Division, Chhindwara,Through Assistant Engineer, M.P.Grah Nirman Mandal Project, Sub- Division, Seoni District Seoni, M.P.Versus .......Respondents:1. Narendra Kumar alias Kamal Kumar Jhhabar, S/o Harnarayan Gupta, R/o Triveni Satnami Layout, Vardhman Nagar, Ward No.23, Nagpur (Maharashtra).through Power of Attorney holder Shri Rajendra Gupt, S/o Late Shri Narayandas J.Gupt, Occupation Advocate/Agriculturist, R/o Kachahri Chowk, Seoni, District Seoni.2. Land Acquisition Officer, for Collector (Land Acquisition) Seoni, District Seoni, M.P.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by - Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Respondents no.1 by - Shri Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Respondent no.2 by - Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate --------------------...
Anil Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.13771/2006(s) Anil Kumar Mishra -Versus- State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. ORDER ( .11.2012) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.8.2003 Annx.P/1 and the order dated 25.3.2006 Annx.P/2. It is contended that by the earlier order, the period of absence of the petitioner was said to be regularised under Rule 24 of the M.P.Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short).but since the speaking order was not passed, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10158/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the leave period of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. However, the orders w...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »