Madhya Pradesh Court July 2012 Judgments
Jagdish Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
M.Cr.C.No.7602/2012 31/07/2012 Shri Mohd. Sadiq Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 15/06/12 in connection with Crime No.240/12 registered at P.S.Bargi, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per prosecution it is alleged against this applicant that he and his son Ganesh (since deceased) committed cruelty on deceased in relation to demand of dowry. It is further alleged that Ganesh, husband of deceased Roshni caught hold her hands from behind and this applicant poured the kerosene oil on the body of deceased and set her ablaze. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is father-in-law of deceased Roshni. It is further submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Degree College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P.No.16046/2010 31.7.2012 Counselforthepartiespresent. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separatelyinW.P.No.14932/2010JawaharlalNehruCollegev. BarkatullahUniversityandothersthispetitionisalsodisposed ofwiththefollowingdirections: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with WesternRegionalCommitteeandrespectiveexamining bodies,i.e.,Universities,shalltakeadecisionwithina periodofonemonthinrespectofadmissionsmadefor theacademic session 200809astowhether the same wasinconsonancewiththeRegulationsframedbythe NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the normslaiddownbytheNCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges were admittedstrictlyinaccordancewiththestipulationslaid downvideRegulationsframedbyNCTEandthePolicy oftheStateGovernment,ifany,and...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Lodhi Vs. Commandant Head Quarters
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.P.No.21926/11 31/07/12 Shri N.C.Beohar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner was a candidate who submitted an application for appointment on the post of 'L.D.C.' In pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-1 issued, petitioner applied to participate in the process of selection in the category of handicapped person. It seems that certain orders were passed, petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of selection and as he had not been selected, petitioner had filed this writ petition. On notice being issued, respondents have filed the reply and it is pointed out by the respondents that petitioner having failed in the selection process, he could not be appointed. Subsequently, this Court directed the respondents to produce the entire result with regard to the selection and the respondents have produced the result along with an affidavit filed on 16/05/12 Annexure R-1 to this additional reply is the evaluation sh...
Tag this Judgment!Choteylal Patel Vs. Sardar Amarjeet Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
FA.No.75 o31. 7.2012 Shri Abhishek Gulati, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ankur Shrivastav, counsel for respondent. Heard on IA No.696/12 appellant's application under Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC for grant of stay against execution of the impugned money decree. On earlier occasion while admitting this appeal for final hearing, subject to depositing fifty percent of the decreetal sum and on furnishing the security bond for due execution of the decree to the satisfaction of the trial court, the recovery of remaining sum was ex-parte stayed vide order dated 18.1.2012. Such order has been continued till today. I am apprised by the appellant's counsel that in compliance of such earlier order, the appellant has deposited fifty percent sum with the trial court on 24.2.2012 The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial court along with the impugned judgment as well as averments of the IA argued that the independent witnesses of the alleged agreement of the loan transa...
Tag this Judgment!Mansarover College Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P.No.15214/2010 31.7.2012 Counselforthepartiespresent. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separatelyinW.P.No.14932/2010JawaharlalNehruCollegev. BarkatullahUniversityandothersthispetitionisalsodisposed ofwiththefollowingdirections: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with WesternRegionalCommitteeandrespectiveexamining bodies,i.e.,Universities,shalltakeadecisionwithina periodofonemonthinrespectofadmissionsmadefor theacademic session 200809astowhether the same wasinconsonancewiththeRegulationsframedbythe NCTE and the statutory policy framed by the State Government, if any, and whether the students have been imparted the teaching in accordance with the normslaiddownbytheNCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges were admittedstrictlyinaccordancewiththestipulationslaid downvideRegulationsframedbyNCTEandthePolicy oftheStateGovernment,ifany,and...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Kabir Vs. Archdiocese of Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI MISC. APPEAL NO.1594 OF 201.Hasan Kabir Vs. Archdiocese of Bhopal and others Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. MISC. APPEAL NO.1180 OF 201.Hasan Kabir Vs. Archdiocese of Bhopal and others Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7. ORDER (31/07/2012) Both these appeals have filed assailing the order dated 3/5/2012 and the order dated 22/2/2010 rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and also under Section 151 of CPC claiming the relief of restraining the defendants to raise construction on the land ad-measuring area 9.99 acres of Khasra No.2/3, 4/2, 6/2/3 and Khasra No.2/2 and 2/4 situated at Village Bag Sewania, Tahsil Huzo...
Tag this Judgment!Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3920/2012 31/07/2012 Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. This is the application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for extension of time of the anticipatory bail order dated 28/11/2007 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.10163/2007. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 28/11/2007 thereafter, since applicant who is a labourer had gone for his livelihood at different places, he could not appear before the Arresting Officer. On failure of the appearance, an arrest warrant has been issued against him therefore, he prays for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On due consideration of the aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant Jitu alias Jitendra shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.P.No.9535/2012 (Vinot Sondhiya versus State of MP and otheRs.31.07.2012 Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Rameshwar Thakur, S.I., Ghamapur, Police Station is present in person. The respondents, on the directions issued by this court, have produced the corpus Ku. Menka Sondhiya. She has appeared before this court and states that she is a major and had gone away on her own free will. She further states that she wishes to go alongwith the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement of Ku. Menka Sondhiya, she is permitted to go alongwith the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the statement of Ku. Menka Sondhiya. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Tag this Judgment!Brijgopal @ Jhullan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
31.7.2012 Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate for applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.78/2002 registered at P.S.Kolgawan, District Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 379/411 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The incident took place in the year 2002. Co-accused Rajesh has already been arrested and alleged property has been seized from his possession. During the couRs.of investigation, co-accused stated that the applicant was also with him at the time of committing theft. Since property has already been seized, nothing is required to be seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant will co-operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Basanti Bai Vs. Smt. Premwati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P No.9516/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9516/2011 PETITIONER : SMT. BASANTI BAI Vs. RESPONDENTS : SMT. PREMWATI BAI AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri T. S. Ruprah, Sr. Counsel with Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate. For the respondent No.1 : Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate. For the State : Shri S. S. Bisen, Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (31/07/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 Sub Divisional Officer, Gotegaon in the election petition setting aside the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vedu, Tehsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner and the respondent no.1, both contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Vedu, District...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »