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.
J.K. Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No. 7666/2012 (J.K. Sahu Vs. State of MP and another) 19.06.2012 Heard Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned G.A. for the State on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the respondent no.2, Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bhopal alleging that the said authority is proceeding further in the matter initiated against the petitioner under section 53 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act without furnishing copy of the documents on the basis of which the charges have been levelled upon him. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has taken this court to the impugned order dated 10.05.2012 and submits that the authority has infact permitted the petitioner to inspect the record and obtain the documents as desired by him and infact is not proceeding further in the enquiry as alleged by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the part...
Butti Singh @ Gutti @ Khilan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 200.Butti Singh alias Gutti alias Khilan. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (19/06/2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29/1/2008 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST No.293/1999 by which the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for 30 days was directed. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 31.3.1999 at about...
Ajay Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
WP No.8369/2012 Ajay Kumar State of M.P. And others. 19.06.2012. Shri Anurag Prajapati, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the State. Respondent no.6 Gulab Chand Dubey and respondent no.7 Sunit Dubey are also present. Gulab Chand Dubey and Smt. Sunit Dubey have produced Richa Dubey, their daughter in the Court. We have heard Richa Dubey. She has stated that her date of birth is 17.9.1985 and she is major. It is stated by her that she wants to live with the petitioner. As Richa Dubey is major, she is free to live as per her own free will. It is further stated by her that she was living with her parents on her own free will. She was not in confinement of her parents or under any pressure. As Richa Dubey is a major, she can live as per own wishes.In view of the aforesaid, we set her free and permit her to live as per her own wishes. We close proceedings of this petition with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge JLL...
S.L. Bakoria Vs. Shri V. Tamrekanan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
....1. . Cont.C.No. 1660 o19. 6.2012 Shri Dharmesh Soni, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order has not been complied with in letter and spirit and the person against whom the contempt petition has been filed has not filed his affidavit, though he has authorised another person to file affidavit but it is not permissible under the law. Before considering the aforesaid objection, we have perused the record. By order dated 22.3.2011 a Division Bench of this Court directed thus :- It is now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court that having regard to the principles contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof to show that the workman was not gainfully employed is not on the employer, we therefore, modify the award to the extent that the respondent No.2/workman is reinstated and the entire service period from 12.4.1984 till his age of superannuation shall be tre...
Smt. Leelawati Vs. Sanju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P.No.6001/2012 19.06.2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging the order dated 9.1.2012 passed by the Court below rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the succession application filed by the petitioners. It is contended that since the respondent No.9 was added as a party subsequent to filing of the application for grant of succession certificate such facts were required to be explained and for the said purposes the amendment was sought by the petitioners. However, without considering the aspect that such facts were not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when the application for grant of succession certificate was filed, only because of reason that the application has been filed at a belated stage, the same has been rejected. It is contended hat such an order ...
Agrawal and Company and ors. Vs. Maya Rani @ Malti Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 FA No. 430/1995 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No. 430/1995 .....APPELLANTS/ 1. Agrawal and Company a registered PLAINTIFFS Partnership Firm, 752, Lordganj, Jabalpur 2. Raja Babu Agrawal 3. Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal 4. Smt. Rani Dulaiya Agrawal Nos. 2 and 3 sons and No.4 wife of Shri Gokuldas Agrawal. Nos. 2 to 4 residents of 80, Marhatal, Jabalpur 5. Meena Rani Agrawal, wife of Shri Raja Babu Agrawal, resident of 80 Marhatal, Jabalpur 6. Yateesh Kumar son of Shankar Lal Agrawal 7. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal son of Shankar Lal Agrawal No.6 and 7 residents of Kotwali Ward, Jabalpur 8. Jagranee, widow of Kishanlal Agrawal, Resident of 515, Lordganj Ward, Jabalpur 9. Agrawal Finance Corporation, a registered Partnership Firm situate at Lordganj, Jabalpur -Versus- ....RESPONDENTS:1. Mayaranee alias Malti Bai DEFENDANTS 2 FA No. 430/1995 2. Rajeev Agrawal 3. Sanjeev Agrawal 4. Rashmi Agrawal 5. Rachna Agrawal No.1 widow, No...
Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs. Dhar Indutries
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No.8570/2012 Sterlite Tchnologies Ltd. vs. Dhar Industries & Ors. 19.06.2012 Shri Brian D'silva, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V. Bhide for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing communication dated 8.6.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3 Bank directing them to freeze an amount of Rs.25 lakhs in the account of the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid communication is without jurisdiction and is in-contravention of the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, after arguing at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw the petition to approach the 11th Additional District Judge, Bhopal before whom Section 34 proceedings are pending, by filing an application under section 9 of the Act. He states that the matter is now listed before the said Court on 28...
Satish Virha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No. 1131/2009 (S) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.1131/2009 (S) Satish Virha Vs. State of M.P. and others PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Advocate Counsel for respondent State Shri Lalit Joglekar, Panel Lawyer Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 Shri Deepak Chandna O R D E R (19/6/2012) PER SANJAY YADAV, J Petitioner, an Assistant Grade II in the Department of Transport, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide this petition seeks quashment of appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (NonTechnical) on the ground that the select list was not prepared by taking into consideration the proper and objective assessment of A.C.Rs of preceding 5 years. The petitioner further seeks direction to respondent State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries, to prepare the list afre...
Moil Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Writ Petition No.9002/2010 (s) and Writ Petition No.860/2012 (s) MOIL Jan Shakti Majdoor Sangh vs. Union of India -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for petitioner: Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Shri S. K. Rao, Sr. Adv.with Shri V. K. Pandey. Adv. Respondents No.1-3: Shri Vikram Singh, Adv. Respondent No. 4: Smt. Indira Nair, Sr. Adv. With Shri Rajas Pohankar Adv. Respondent No.5: Shri S. D. Thakur, Adv. and Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (19.06.2012) Sustained industrial growth is possible in a country with an optimum utilization of input. Labour, skilled on/and unskilled is an important nay an inevitable input without which no industry can function. And for better and maximum or the optimum utilization o...
M.P.Audhyogik Dendra Vikas Nigam(Bhopal) Vs. Latif Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI FIRST APPEAL NO.349 OF 200.M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal) Limited vs Latif Khan and others PRESENT : For appellant : Shri Vijay Pandey, Advocate For respondent No.1 and 2 : Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Shri S.P. Rai, Panel Lawyer FIRST APPEAL NO.166 OF 200.M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal) Limited vs Shyam Kishore and others PRESENT : For appellant : Shri Vijay Pandey, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Shri S.P. Rai, Panel Lawyer FIRST APPEAL NO.167 OF 200.M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal) Limited vs Mustaque Khan and others PRESENT : For appellant : Shri Vijay Pandey, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Shri Ashok Chakraverty, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Shri S.P. Rai, Panel Lawyer FIRST APPEAL NO.350 OF 200.M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal) Limited vs Munshilal and another 2 PRESENT : ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »