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.
Mool Chand Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No.8603/2012 (Moolchand Soni Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 19.06.2012 Heard Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, 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. It is stated that the civil suit between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is also pending. In the circumstances, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others, the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigat...
Heeramani Gupta Vs. Arjun Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No.8582/2012 Heeramani Gupta vs. Arjun Singh & Ors. 19.06.2012 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 13.3.2012 and 29.5.2012 by which the petitioner's right to adduce evidence in defence has been closed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the Election Petition Case No.07/A-89/2009-2010 which has been filed by respondent no.1 against the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Raghurajgarh, Janpad Panchayat Raipur Karchuliyan, Tehsil Manganwa, District Rewa. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the Tribunal has recorded an incorrect finding of fact to the effect that the petitioner has been given several opportunities since 20.7.2011 to adduce evidence and in such circumstances no further opportunity should be given and his right should be closed. By taking this Court through the order sheets filed alongwith...
Akbar HussaIn Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1099/1996 Akbar Hussain VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ishteyaq Husain, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 19th day of June, 2012) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 5.7.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T.No.56/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for 3 months Rigorous imprisonment in addition to the jail sentence.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 13.4.1994, at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased Jamana Ba...
The State of M.P. Vs. Sevaram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sevaram and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (19.06.2012) The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by the 3 rd Additional Session Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal no.9/93, by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also the respondent Gulab Bai was acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 506...
M/S Swagatika Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No. 12623/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.12623/2007) M/s. Swagatika Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UCO Bank and others PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri P. Shankaran, Advocate Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 Shri Atul Choudhary, Advocate Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate O R D E R (19/6/2012) PER SANJAY YADAV, J Petitioner, a registered Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956, purchaser of plot No. 21 B, 22 Aat Sector 'G' and 24/3 at Sector 'D', Industrial Area, J.K. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal being the land and building and plant and machinery thereon measuring 37000 sq. ft. office building, factory shed and 31800 sq. ft. machine and fabrication shop total being 68800 sq. ft. The said plots, having been purchased for Rs.1.30 crores, of which an amount of Rs.60 lakhs were deposited, has raised a grievance vide t...
Avadh Bihari Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P.No.8562/2012 19/06/2012 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer (SDO) PWD, Bijawar District-Chhatarpur. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is transferred from Bijawar to Tikamgarh and Respondent No.4, who is a Sub-Engineer, has been posted in place of the petitioner. Contending that the posting of Respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner is unsustainable, petitioner has filed this writ petition. From the facts that have come on record, it is seen that the petitioner is only shifted from one office to another and it is only a temporary arrangement. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference and granting liberty to the petitioner to represent to the departmental authorities, in case he has any grievance, this petition is disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Anil Kumar Das Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No. 11326/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No.11326/2011 Anil Kumar Das Vs. Dinesh Kumar PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri Arun Choubey and Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate Counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri L.N. Sakle, Advocate Counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Lalit Joglekar, Panel Lawyer O R D E R (19/6/2012) PER SANJAY YADAV, J This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by First Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 31A/2009; whereby, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by respondent No. 3 seeking impleadment in the suit has been allowed. 2. Suit by the petitioner is for specific performance of contract dated 26.7.2007 which is an agreement for sale of property bearing Khasra No. 52/1 area 2 acres or in the ...
Ramesh Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
W.P. No.8641/2012 (Ramesh Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 19.06.2012 Heard Shri Pankaj Tiwari, 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. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008(2) SCC 409.and 2008(3) SCC 54.Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and others, the petitioner is required to take up the appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in accordance with law instead of filing the present petition before this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for mitigation of his grievances, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dispose...
Raghunandan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No.8565/2012 Raghunandan Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 19.06.2012 Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. K. Mishra for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to issuance of notice, the police authorities have registered a case and are taking due steps in the matter and, therefore, he does not wish to press the petition any further. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as not pressed. ( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Ramgopal Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
1 W.P. No.8193/2012 Ram Gopal Thakur vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 19.06.2012 Heard Shri R.K. Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 for taking action against respondent No.6 and to issue further direction commanding the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for registering a criminal case against respondent No.7 for making false and forged document for the purpose of obtaining a favourable order in favour of respondent no.7. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of Khasra No.27, 0.440 hectare and Khasra No. 278, 0.660 hectare of village Mehgaon and for this purpose he had filed an application for mutation before the respondent No.6, which is still pending decision. It is stated that in the proceedings, respondent No.7 was also made a party, who entered appearance in the petitioner's case and thereafter filed a sep...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »