Madhya Pradesh Court June 2012 Judgments
Rafi Ansari Vs. Jaki Ansari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Writ Petition No.6625 / 2012 (Rafi Ansari .Vs.Jaki Ansari) 29-06-2012 Heard Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 9-4-2012 passed in C.S.No.122-A/2010 by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Seoni wherein he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the issue relating to valuation of the suit as a preliminary issue. From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the trial Court has rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner on two grounds; firstly, that the aforesaid issue is a mixed question of law and fact and secondly, on account of the fact that entire evidence in the suit is already over and the case has not been listed for final arguments and judgment and in such circumstances, the Court has held that the issue raised by the petitioner shall be decided alongwith final decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Channu @ Sheoprasad Dubey Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.861 OF 200.Chunnu alias Sheoprasad Dubey. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of June, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4/4/2003 passed by the Second Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Special Case No.15/2011, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for three months was directed.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakant Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.8803/2012 29.6.2012 Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Challenging the order of suspension Annexure P/5 dated 24.5.2012 and contending that the petitioner has been suspended only because petitioner made certain complaints against the senior officeRs.this writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension on the ground of malafide. It is stated that petitioner has been awarded a gold medal for his excellent work by the Minister of the department concerned on 26.1.2012, he has also been recommended for out of turn promotion. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner has made complaint against respondents No.4 and 5, impugned action has been taken. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents refutes the aforesaid and it has been pointed out by him that the charge sheet has been issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest and not by respondents No.4 and 5 and in the suspension order c...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Gansi Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.9328/2012 (Smt. Gansi Bai versus State of MP and otheRs.29.06.2012 Heard Shri S.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to assail the order passed by the Collector, Dindori dated 21.06.2012 as well as the proceedings taken up by him before the revisional authority. As prayed, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner takes up the proceedings against the impugned order passed by the Collector, Dindori along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from the date of obtaining the same, the revisional authority shall take up the matter expeditiously and decide the same as early as possible in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!The State of M.P. Vs. Jagbandhu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.1688 of 1998 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jagbandhu and 3 others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri A. B. Khan, counsel for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 29th day of June, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.1.1997 passed by learned JMFC Nagod, District Satna (Shri S. K. Mishra) in Criminal Case No.179/1990 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323 or 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 8.3.1990 the respondents no.3 and 4 Raju and Bablu alias Balram were opening a door towards the la...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushma Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
Writ Petition No.9463 / 2012 (Smt. Sushma Uike .versus State of M.P.and otheRs.29-06-2012 Heard Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 11-6-2012 by which the election programme for holding the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chiraidongri, Nainpur, District Mandla has been issued by the respondents. In view of the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take up and pursue the proceedings which are available to him in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed accordingly. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Indira Devee Gour Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 W.P.No.8136/2012 Ku. Indira Devee Guar versus State of M.P.& ORS.22.06.2012 Heard Shri Pramesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to re-value and re-examine the answer sheet of the second paper given by her while appearing in the Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade-I).Eligibility Test, 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has throughout obtained good marks in the subject of Biology but in the instant examination she has been awarded 36 marks out of 100, which in itself indicates that the respondent authorities have not properly examined and scrutinized the answer sheet of the petitioner. It is prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to re-value and re-examine the answer sheet of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. There is nothing on...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.8795/2012 (Narendra Singh versus State of M.P.& ors.) 27.06.2012 Shri B.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities, inspite of sanction for proceeding with the construction of a canal in accordance with the map (Annexure P-3) and after acquiring the land and paying compensation in that respect are now, under pressure from certain persons, are diverting the canal which would not pass through the petitioner's land, without any sanction, notification or any acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation before the Collector, Satna bringing to his notice his grievances but no decision thereon has been taken. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that represe...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
W.P.No.8743/2012 (Sanjay versus State of M.P.& ors.) 29.06.2012 Heard Shri K.C.Ghildiyal learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner inspite of the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhi, District Katni has directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Barhi to do so by communication dated 27.03.20102. In the circumstances, 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 alongwith a copy of the petition before the concerned authority within two weeks, the said authority shall look into the matter and deal with it expeditiously in accordance with law as far as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter. It is made clear that this court has not issued any directions to the autho...
Tag this Judgment!Satendra Shukla Vs. Smt.Manorama Raghuwanshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR MCC NO.976/2006 SATYENDRA SHUKLA VS. SMT. MANORAMA RAGHUVANSHI & ANOTHER. Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior counsel with Shri Pranay Verma, for the applicant. Shri S. B. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. ______________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER 29.6.2012) ( Seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal and invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this application has been filed by the applicant.2. Dispute in question pertains to enforcement of an agreement for sale entered into between the parties for sale of certain property. Vide an agreement for sale executed between the parties at Bhopal on 7th August, 2004 parties agreed to sell certain property situated in village 2 Kalkheda, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal bearing old Khasra No.24/1 measuring 2 acres. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »