Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Narendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1....Cr. Appeal No.1672 of 07 Narendra State of M.P.13.12.2012 Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. I.A.21188/12 for suspension of sentence and release on bail to the appellant No.2 Bablu @ Santosh. This is the 6th bail application on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellant is in custody since 27.7.2007 and being an appeal of 2007, there is remote chance of hearing of this appeal in near future. It is further submitted that only evidence against the appellant is of recovery of an Axe and there is no evidence that the blood on the axe was of the same group of deceased and except this, no other evidence is on record. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant merely on the ground that the brother of the appellant Bablu namely Narendra was found involved in the matter, that too on the basis of circumstantial evidence that one button of his shirt was f...
Vinod Kumar Barsaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.5197/09 Vinot Kumar Barsaiya .. .. Petitioner Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : Smt. Nirmala Nayak, to 3 Government Advocate =============== Present: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (13.12.2012) In this petition, the petitioner inter alia, has challenged the validity of the orders dated 6.8.2008, 16.2.2009 and 15.4.2009 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in special branch has been rejected and the petitioner has been informed that the application for review of the order dated 6.8.2008 has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to modify the order of promotion dated 29.12.2010 by which the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in District Police Establ...
Asif Ali Siddique Vs. Pratima J. Gohil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
A.A.No.42/2011 13.12.2012 Shri Brahmdatt Singh, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.11.2011 in Arbitration Case No.41/2011 by 11th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court).Bhopal by which an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking temporary injunction against the respondents, restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring and handing over possession of the suit property, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that original agreement is with respondent No.1 who had taken the agreement in a suit filed by appellant and respondent No.1 jointly without the consent of the appellant and the present petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the court below on the basis of Photostat copy of the agreement. The Photostat copy only was available to the appellant and the learned court below ought to have granted temporary inju...
Abhay Kushwaha Vs. the Chairperson
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P. No.1848/2012 13.12.2012 Shri Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners have challenged order Annexure P-5 by which the academic programme of the petitioners have been terminated with immediate effect and another order dated 09.01.2012 by which an appeal preferred by the petitioners against order Annexure P-5 was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the academic programme was terminated by the respondents because of poor academic performance and on a belief that the performance of the petitioners cannot improve in future. But after the decision Annexure P-5 the respondents have taken another decision on 18.06.2012, proposed amendment in the Manual and it have been decided that in place of termination, one academic drop and thereafter one academic break be given to the students so that they may improve their performance. It is also submitted that specific reasons have been assigned i...
Nishchal Jharia Vs. Shri Ashok Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1....R.P.No.762 of 12 Nishchal Jharia Ashok Das and others 13.12.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, Counsel for the petitioner. This review petition is directed against an order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Single Bench in Contempt Case No.1953/11 by which the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, as the Judge who had passed the order has not demitted the office. The office has listed this case for consideration before the Division Bench as per rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by this Court in w.P.No.10382 of 11 (s) was not complied with but the contempt petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State that the order was complied with, believing it to be true. While the factual position is that the order was not produced before the Court and when the petitioner had became aware with the order, it revealed that in fact i...
Lal Bahadur @ Ingh @ Pushparaj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
M.Cr.C.No.560/12. 13.12.2012 None for the applicant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. This third repeat application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection of Crime No.60/09 registered against him and some other persons at Police Station Nagod District Satna for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 302, 307 and 506- B/34 of I.P.C.for which trial is still pending. It is apparent fact that subsequent to filing the application the case was listed firstly on 21.2.2012 and thereafter on 3.4.2012, 31.7.2012 and 17.8.2012, but on taking up the matter for hearing no one was appeared on behalf of the applicant to adjudicate this petition on such dates on which, the case was adjourned. In such premises it is listed today for final hearing. State counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. He further submits that according to the charge-sheet there is sufficient prima facie evidence of the a...
Shri Adinath Digambar JaIn Mandir Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.1936/2012 (Shri Adinath Digambar Jain Mandir versus the Commissioner & ors.) 13.12.2012 Shri R.K.Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Corporation. Shri Sankalp Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for thee respondent No.4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging illegal construction by the respondent No.3. It is alleged that the said respondent in total disregard of the sanctioned map approved by the Corporation has violated the same and has made construction in excess of the sanctioned map, which is contrary to law. It is stated that the respondent No.2, the building officer of the Corporation has already conducted an enquiry and marked the illegal construction but the respondent authorities are not taking any action to demolish the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is observed that the matter ...
Ku. Pragya Bilgayan Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.13649/2012 (Ku. Pragya Bilgayan versus Board of Secondary Education) 13.12.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State. Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent Board. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the valuation of her answer sheets in the subjects of English (Special).Hindi (General) and Mathematics in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the year 2012. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been awarded less marks in the subjects of English (Special).Hindi (General) and in Mathematics, in which she has been awarded 70 marks in English, 93 marks in Hindi and 61 in Mathematics. The petitioner has alleged that his answer sheets have not been properly evaluated. In view of the aforesaid allegations, this Court had directed the respondent Board to produce the answer sheets of t...
Tuhina Agnihotri Vs. Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
W.P.No.12548/2012 (Tushina Agnohotri versus M.P.Board of Sec. Edu. 13.12.2012 Shri Ritesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State. Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent Board. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the valuation of her answer sheets in the subjects of English (Special) and Hindi (General) in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the year 2011-12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been awarded less marks in the subjects of English (Special) and in Hindi (General).in which she has been awarded 70 marks in English and 77 marks in Hindi. The petitioner has alleged that his answer sheets have not been properly evaluated. In view of the aforesaid allegations, this Court had directed the respondent Board to produce the answer sheets of the petitioner in the subject of English (Special) an...
N.S.Bundela Vs. Chairman,m.P.E.B. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.5267/2000 N.S. Bundela Vs. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri Akash Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (13.12.2012) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) by which penalty of withholding of one increment of pay with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner after a departmental enquiry and the order dated 07.04.2000 (Annexure P-2) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty has been dismissed. It is contended that earlier a show cause notice was given to the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »