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.
Shiv Shakti Swa Sahayata Samoh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21559/2012 (Shiv Shakti Swa Sahayata Samooh versus State of MP and otheRs.21.12.2012 Shri R.S.Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Collector who is the prescribed authority to resolve the dispute relating to award of contract for mid-day-meals. It is observed that in case the petitioner approaches the concerned authority along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months thereafter by passing a reasoned order, after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Madhur Kumar Shrivastava Vs. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Developme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21595 / 2012 (Madhur Kumar Shrivastava..Vs..M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Bhopal & anr.) 21-12-2012 Heard Shri S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the representation (Annexure P-4).dated 21-11-2011, filed by the petitioner before the respondent/authorities be directed to be considered and decided by the respondent/authorities. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition to the respondent/authorities within seven days of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation, dated 21-11-2011 in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion o...
Dr. Jayant Kumar Tankhiwale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21072/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended that the petitioner has made a detailed representation claiming the benefit of non- practicing allowance in terms of the instructions issued by the State Government, for the period he has discharged the duty as District Ayurved Officer. It is contended that such a representation of the petitioner has not yet been decided whereas, the similar claim made in several petitions have already been decided. This Court has already decided the claim with respect to the grant of non-practicing allowance to the physician of the Ayurved Branch of the Public Health Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 8.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5269/2007(s).The issue was decided earlier in Writ Petition No.5850/2003. This being so, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in light of...
Heeru @ Aashish Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2185/2005 Heeru @ Aashish Pandey and two others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellants No.1 & 2 : Shri J.L. Mishra, Advocate. For the appellant No.3 : Ku. Manisha Shrivastava, Advocate, High Court Legal Services Authority. For the respondent/State : Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni in Special Case No.10 of 2003 whereby the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of A...
Om Sai Institute of Management Vs. Superintendent of Police Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21179 / 2012 (Om Sai Institute of Management, Betul ..Vs..Supdt. of Police, Bhopal & otheRs.21-12-2012 Heard Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.3. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.is to take up appropriate proceedings as prescribed and provided in the Criminal Procedure Code before the competent Court in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. In view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings before the competent Court in accor...
Kailash Narayan Dubey Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Conc Case No :1674. 2011 Kailash Narayan Dubey versus Manot Jhalani and otheRs.21.12.2012. Shri Narendra Sharma for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Interalia contending that an order passed on 26.10.2005, in Writ Petition No.13173/2005(S).has not been complied with and the benefits accruing to the applicant/petitioner by virtue of an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and others versus State of MP and others).has not been extended to the applicant, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. It is the case of the applicant that on 26.10.2005, the specific direction issued by this Court was to the extent that the benefit of the order be given to the applicant also, but inspite thereof non-applicants have not granted the benefit. On notices be issued, non-applicants have filed a detailed reply and they have demonstrated before this Court that the applicant is not en...
Smt. Halki Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21139 / 2012 (Smt. Halki Bai & others ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.21-12-2012 Heard Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents No.4 to 7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of directions of this Court no criminal proceedings against them have been initiated by the police authorities and, therefore, the aforesaid direction is sought for by the petitioners in the present petition. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the previous petition filed by the petitioneRs.i.e.W.P.No.21335/2012 was disposed of by this Court on 28-11-2011 by giving liberty to the petitioners to take recouRs.of law in respect of the alleged forgery committed by the respondents No.4 to 7, but there was no direction to initiate any criminal proceedings against them. It is stated by the learned counsel for the ...
Girdhari Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
M.C.C.No :1392. 2012 Girdhari Lal Sahu versus State of Madhya Pradesh & OtheRs.21.12.2012. Shri Devesh Khatri for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. This application has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No.21016/2011, which was dismissed for non- compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 2.5.2012. The default is attributed to some lapse on the part of the counsel for the applicant. The application is supported by affidavit of the counsel. Considering the reason given in the applications, they are allowed. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.21016/2011 is restored to its original file. It be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing. Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Kailash Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Criminal Appeal No.2615/2010 21/12/2012 Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, GA for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.24351/12, which is the third application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. The earlier two applications of appellant were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11/02/11 and 12/12/11. Appellant has been convicted by Trial Court under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for 7 yeaRs.RI for 3 months & fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is in jail since 15/05/2008 and already suffered the jail sentence of 4 years and 7 months which is half of the jail sentence awarded to him. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the lea...
Chhotelal Yadav and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1579 OF 199.Chhotelal Yadav & another. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/9/1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in ST No.1/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of Convictio Sentence Fine Default the n U/S (Rs.) sentence accused Chhotelal 458 of One year's RI and IPC Jivanlal Three years' RI 307/34 of IPC 2.of One year's RI Arms Act 27 of Arms Act One year's RI 2 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »