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.
Sohanlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri V.P.Singh, Advocate for appellant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for State. Heard on I.A.No.13722/2012, which is sixth application under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 342, 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 1 year and R.I.for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 5 years and 5 months, which is more than half of the total jail sentence awarded to him. Co-accused Lal Singh @ Karia has been released by the Government on his completing more than half of the total jail sentence awarded to him. A letter dated 17.12.2011 issued by the Office of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur has been placed on record in this regard. Thus, the jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail. Lea...
Niranjan Singh Vs. Ajay Tirki
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Con. C.No.1071/2012 30.07.2012 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue show cause to non-applicants No.2 to 5 as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for non- compliance of the order dated 19/3/2010 passed in W.P.No.10966/2009 and to furnish wrong information in Con. Case No.1299/2010 which was disposed of on the basis of the said information on 21/4/2011. Notice be issuing indicating the aforesaid fact to the non-applicants, on payment of P.F.within three days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. List this case on 10th September, 2012 for further ordeRs.(J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts...
Rakesh Kumar Sethi Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Conc No.427 o30. 07.2012 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Advocate for respondent No.2. As the respondent No.1 has already been served but no one is representing him, however it is directed to Smt. Dubey to seek instructions in the matter and file Vakalatnama as well as reply. Shri Dhagat, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that as per the order passed by this Court on 3.3.2005 in W.P.No.3176/2005 direction was issued to extend similar pay-scale and dearness allowance to the petitioner within six months which has been paid to the Government school teacheRs.On filing contempt petition, the appeal has been preferred by the State Government before the Apex Court wherein as per the order passed in SLP (Civil) No.19188/2008 dated 5.11.2009 it was directed that the State of Madhya Pradesh shall pay the teachers of the Private Government-aided schools at the rate of 50 per cent of the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission up to 31.3.2009. As per ...
Chintu Bai Vs. Bhura
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.808/2007 30.7.2012 Shri S.C.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. None for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 mentioned in IA No.11737/11, although served. None for respondent Nos.2 to 8. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned Dy. GA for the respondent No.9. In order to consider the question of limitation for entertaining IA No.11737/11, appellant's application to substitute legal representatives on record, the date of death of such respondent No.1 is required, which is not mentioned by the appellants on the IA. On asking the counsel in this regard, appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted 15 days time to verify the aforesaid date from the appellant's counsel and place the same on record. Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 27.8.2012 for consideration of aforesaid IA. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Durga Ekta Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.10686 / 2012 (Durga Ekta Swa Sahayata Samooh, Hoshangabad ..Vs.State of MP & otheRs.30-07-2012 Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in this petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation against the withdrawal of contract for supply of mid day meal in Government Ram Narayan Agrawal High School, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad (Annexure P-6).The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents submits that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent/authorities, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned authority expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed o...
Smt. Kamala Bai Thakur Vs. Prem Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.812/12 30.07.2012. Shri Dinesh Prasad Patel, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Soni, learned counsel for respondent. Heard. The allegation made against the respondent is that the respondent against whom Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance has been inflicted is not regularly depositing it and huge arrears is there. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent is depositing regularly Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month as arrears of the backlog. Looking to the circumstances of the case, respondent is directed to deposit regularly Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance , and further Rs.3,000/- per month as arrears of the backlog until the backlog is cleared, meaning thereby respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of 2 Rs.6,000/- per month until the arrears of the backlog is cleared. With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of finally. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Dharam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 7.7.2012 in connection with Crime No.223/2012 registered at P.S.Barghat, District Seoni for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution, more than 50 bulk liters of illicit country made liquor alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, with...
Paras JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.10005 / 2012 (Paras Jain ..Vs.State of MP & otheRs.30-07-2012 Shri Vinot Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30-4-2012, passed by the respondent No.3 reviewing his previous orders as well as the revenue entries as well as the order dated 15-7-2011 passed by the S.D.O., Katni permitting the Tahsildar to review his previous ordeRs.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire proceedings taken up by the S.D.O.as well as Tahsildar are all without any authority of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed. The aforesaid orders are required to be examined after going through the entire facts of the case as well as record which cannot be done in this petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India as an alternative remed...
Murlidhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11551/2012 30.7.2012 Shri Anubhav Jain, counsel for petitioneRs.It was submitted by Shri Jain that the colonizer, though established a colony namely Deepshree Colony, but has not been provided necessary amenities like approach road, water facility, etc.In this regard he has drawn our attention to Annexure P-7 dated 10.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Khandwa. It was also submitted by him that the colonizer has started construction on the land, which was reserved for below poverty line persons, without providing such amenities. Considering aforesaid, we direct issuance of notice to the respondents to show cause, as to why this petition be not admitted. Process fee within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Notice be made returnable before next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 5.9.2012. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that respondent nos.4 & 5 shall not alienate the suit property and shall not raise any construction on the lan...
Ramgopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1288/2012 30.07.2012 Shri S.Singh, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, G.A.for State. Records of the courts below were called on 16.7.2012 but not received. Heard on I.A.No.14502/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant . Applicant has been convicted u/s354 of IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fined of Rs.500/ -vide judgment and finding dated 23.4.2012 in Criminal Case no.919/10 by J.M.F.C Damoh; in Cri. appeal No.37/12 vide judgment dated 5.7.12 of Sessions Judge Damoh has dismissed the appeal . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has been deposited by applicant. Looking to the nature of punishment and the nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed of at an early date I.A.not is allowed. It is directed that if the accused/applicantRamgopal pays the fine and furnishes personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) with a surety ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »