Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Angad Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J. Criminal Appeal No.1035/2012 Angad Singh Gond VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Kuldeep Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 20th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.3.2012 passed by Special Judge under NDPS Act, Satna in Special case No.80/2009, by which the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (b) read with section 20 (a) (i) of NDPS Act and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for 2 months Rigorous imprisonment in addition to the jail sentence. 2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 22.10...
Ankur Arora Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 Review Petition No. 397/2012 20.6.2012 Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondent AICTE. With consent they are heard. Order passed in this Review Petition shall govern final disposal of Review Petition Nos. 301/2012, 302/2012, 303/2012, 304/2012 and 353/2012. By these review petitions, petitioners seek review of order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13769/2011 and other connected writ petitions in pursuance to liberty granted by Supreme Court vide S.L.P (Civil) No. 6960/2012, 70397040/2012; 70417053/2012; 70937099/2012 on 12.3.2012 which was in the following terms: Dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the petitioners, if they so desire, to file appropriate Review Petition (s) before the High Court since it is brought to our notice that the petitioners had questioned the validity or otherwise of both t...
Pushpa Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No. 8647/2012 (Pushpa Raikwar Vs. State of MP and another) 20.06.2012 Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned G.A. for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the tender notice dated 18.05.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 proposing to auction the right to establish Public Service Centre at Vijayraghavgarh District Katni on the ground that the petitioner is already running the same since 10.12.2010 under the contract with the respondent no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Collector, Katni on 12.06.2012 against issuance of the tender notice but no heed thereon has been paid till date. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent no.2, the Collector, Katni before proceedi...
Smt. Shakuntala Goswami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P.No.13388/2007 20/06/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 2007 challenging the order dated 31.5.2007, by which the petitioner was being retired at the age of 58 years. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of Rule 33 of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Condition of Service) Rules, 1999 Annexure-P4, petitioner is entitled to work upto the age of 60 years. While admitting the petition on 5.9.2007, operation of the impugned order dated 31.5.2007 was stayed, as such the petitioner continued to work upto the age of 60 years and respondents have not even bother to file the reply till date and even the same is not refuted on affidavit. In view of the aforesaid and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already worked upto the age of 60 years, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-P1 dated 31.5.2007 is quashed, respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to h...
Ran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No. 7654/2012 (Ran Singh Vs. State of MP and others) 20.06.2012 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for direction to the respondents no.1 to 3 to take up further steps to obtain order under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. in the proceedings pending against him before the Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner it is apparent that Dy. Superintendent of Police, Railway by his letter dated 22.06.2011 has already moved an application before the Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur for taking up the matter and passing order under section 169 of the Cr.P.C. which is pending decision. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the respondents/ authorities are themselves taking steps in the matter and no separate direction is necessary to be issued by this court. It goes without saying that the petitioner may approach and pursue the ...
Kaneez Fatima Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No.6688/2012 (Kaneez Fatima Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 20.06.2012 Heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondent police authorities to look into the representation of the petitioner seeking proper investigation. The learned Govt. Advocate has no objection to the same. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the police authorities to look into the representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the authorities by the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the petition fi...
Christian Missionary Society Narsinghpur Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 W.P. No.8810/2012 Christian Missionary Society vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 20.06.2012 Heard Shri A. S. Raizada learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.5.2012 passed by the District Education Officer, Narsingpur de- recognizing the institution being run by the petitioner. It is, however, fairly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed an appeal against the order passed by the District Education Officer before the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Jabalpur on 28.5.2012 alongwith an application for stay but the said authority is sitting tight over the matter and is not deciding the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as it is apparent that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy before the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Jabalpur alongwith an application for stay and the matter is seized by him, I do not fi...
M/S Bhagwandas Shobhalal JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
M.C.C.No.648/2012 20.6.2012 Shri Saket Agarwal, counsel for applicant. Shri Abhay Pandey, counsel for respondent no.1. For the reasons stated in the application in respect of serious ailment of the counsel, representing the applicant in W.P.No.15285/2007, supported by affidavit and medical evidence, we find that the applicant has made out a case for restoration of W.P.No.15285/2007. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Office is directed to restore W.P.No.15285/2007 to its number and to list it before the appropriate Bench for consideration. This M.C.C., is finally disposed of, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
Beta @ Ram Kinker Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
(1) HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1163 of 1996 Beta alias Ram Kinker Versus. State of M.P. For appellant : Shri Surendra Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate. For respondent : Shri Umesh Pandey, GA JUDGMENT (Oral) (Passed on 20.6..2012) U.C. MAHESHWARI J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.7.96 passed by the Special Judge (Constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) in Special Case No.88/95 convicting the appellant under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act') with a direction to undergo for RI 2 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI one year. As per findings of the above mentioned judgment, the appellant was found in possession of 1.950 Kg of the contraband substance the Ganja.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 10.8.95 S...
Narayan Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No. 8611/12 (Narayan Tiwari Vs. State of MP and another) 20.06.2012 Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned G.A. for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the tender notice dated 18.05.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 proposing to auction the right to establish Public Service Centre at Katni on the ground that the petitioner is already running the same since 10.12.2010 under the contract with the respondent no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Collector on 12.06.2012 against issuance of the tender notice but no heed thereon has been paid till date. The notice had been issued in the present petition by this court on 14.06.2012 but no response till date has been filed. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation of the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »