Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Kemala Basor Vs. Pancha Basor (Timma)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 S.A.No.167/2001 30.07.2012 Shri Amit Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri D.N.Shukla, Advocate for the respondents No.1(a).(b).( c).(d).2 and 3. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law : Whether the two Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration without having any partition of the land which belonged to the original owner Mudiya, however, the judgment and decree so passed is in accordance with law and the finding so recorded is not perverse?.. Let a copy of the appeal memo and the substantial question of law be supplied to Shri D.N.Shukla, Advocate as well as in the office of the Advocate General representing the respondent No.4-State. List after two months. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ap 2 3...
Bahadur @ Pandey Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2161 OF 201.Bahadur @ Pandey Kol. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2382 OF 201.Shripal Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2564 OF 201.Rajman @ Gappi & another. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Arubendra Singh, Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A.No.2161/2011 and Cr.A.No.2382/2011. Shri Raj Kamal Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A.No.2564/2011. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of July, 2012) This judgment passed by me shall govern the disposal of above mentioned criminal appeals, since these appeals arise out of common impugned judgment. 2 Cr.A.No.2161/11, 2382/11 & 2565/11 2. THESE cr...
Brajbhan Prasad Tiwari Vs. Ramdeen Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.1014/2005 30.7.2012 Shri K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri U.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned Dy. GA for the respondent No.4. In the couRs.of arguments on IA No.10018/05, appellant's application for grant of stay against execution of the impugned decree. On asking the appellant's counsel that in the impugned decree regarding dismissal of the suit of the appellant what stay could be granted in this matter, on which after perusing the IA, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA with liberty to file fresh application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing ad interim injunction. Considering such prayer the aforesaid IA is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, aforesaid. As the IA has been dismissed as withdrawn, hence interim order dated 12.5.2006 directing to maintain status quo is not being continued. C c as per rules. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
K.L.Banskar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 K.L.Banskar versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11395/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rajneesh Patel , learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner, a Multi Purpose Health Worker in the Public Health Engineering Department, has been transferred from Jatara District-Tikamgarh to Chhatarpur, this writ petition is filed. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in the midst of the session, the petitioner is transferred contrary to various policies of the Government. Challenge is also made on the grounds of various inconveniences of the petitioner. The grounds raised in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is called for. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd 2 K.L.Banskar versus State of MP and others...
Smt. Rahnuma Khanam Vs. Alauddin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.1191/2011 30.7.2012 Shri S.P.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. The case is listed today for consideration of IA No.8344/12, appellant's application for extension of time to cure the default, raised by the office. In the couRs.of arguments on aforesaid IA, in response of some query of the court based on Section 3 (2) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, r/w Section 3 of Cr.P.C., instead to argue further today, appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted the short adjournment to examine some legal position keeping in view the aforesaid provision, so also the provisions of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act 1939. Let this matter be listed in the next week, meanwhile appellant's counsel is directed to place a copy of the application filed by the appellant in the trial court under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Act positively enabling the court to consider the aforesaid IA. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Smt. Nisha Kiran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Smt.Nisha Kiran Singh Vs.State of MP & others W.P.No.11503/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Keeping in view the frequent orders of transfer passed transferring the petitioner from one place to another as is indicated in the petition, operation of the order Annexure-P1 dated 13.7.2012, transferring the petitioner is directed to be stayed and petitioner permitted to work at her present place of posting at Anuppur till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Pandhari Patankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Pandhari Patankar versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11212 30. 7.2012: Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School Parbhudhana, Block Bheempur, Tahsil Bhainsdehi, District Betul and has been transferred by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12.7.2012 to another Primary School in Block Ghodadongri in the same District Betul. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that wife of petitioner is also working and if transfer is affected it will breach the transfer policy. Considering the aforesaid that petitioner is only transferred from one school to another in the same district, no case is made out for interference, the petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of statutory remedy available. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Chhotu @ Anurag Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1264/2012 30.07.2012 Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for applicants. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A.for State. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed to consolidate the S.T.No.352/2005 and S.T.No.290/10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court on 28.2.2011 in Misc.Cr.Case No.1257/11 ordered for separate trial of both Sessions Trials. In case of revision which was brought forward by Pawan Pathak in which he was arrested he made an application to complete his trial together with other accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that one Kanchhedi Lal appeared previously has narrated the story in favour of prosecution but in case of S.T.No.290/10 the same witness appeared as PW 4 had denied the incident in toto. Legally evidence of one case is not used in another case so the matter may be consolidated. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it seems proper that justice should not be done ...
Chairperson, Board of Governors, Institute of Hotel Management Vs. A.S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W r i t P et i t i on N o ....
Anil Kumar Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA No.9/10. 30.7.2012 Shri Sandeep Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents no.1, 2, 3, 7 and 9. Respondents no.4 is dead. Respondents no.5, 6, & 8 are still unserved. Appellants counsel submits that today he has filed I.A.No.8681/12 for dispensing with the service of the notice on respondents no.2 & 6 and I.A.No.8682/12, for deleting the name of respondents no.4 from the array of appeal memo on account of his death stating that he was proceeded exparte before the trial Court and, therefore, to bring his legal representatives on record is not necessary. Heard on I.A.No.8681/12, respondent no.2 has already been served and, therefore, the order for dispensing with the service of the notice against such respondents is not required in the matter. The respondent no.6 was co-defendant in the trial Court with the appellant/defendant and he has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and this appeal could be adjudicated effectively only in presence of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »