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.
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 ...
Mahesh Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
W.P.No.11546/12 (s) 30/07/12 Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Patwari' and has been transferred from one Tahsil to another in the same district of Jabalpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the grounds of malafides and by contending that as per the circular and policy of the State Govt. an employee should not be posted in his home tahsil and as the petitioner is transferred to his home Tahsil, it is stated that the transfer is illegal. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo in the matter as is existing shall be maintained. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Tara Nanhoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
FA.No.543 o30. 7.2012 Ku C.V.Rao, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sourabh Sahini, for respondents. Heard on IA No.8212/12 an application for amendment in the prayer clause of IA No.8020/10 appellant's application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and appellant's counsel is directed to carry-out the necessary corrections in IA No.8020/10 within three days. Subject to such corrections, this matter be placed in the next week for consideration of IA No.8020/10. Till next hearing of this appeal, the interim order dated 26.7.2010 regarding status-quo is continued. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Suhani Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Review Petition No. 328 Of 2012 4.7.2012 Shri V.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel with Shri R.S. Saini, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. United India Insurance Company, by this petition seeks review of settlement arrived at on 7th November 2009, whereon the claimants were benefited by enhanced compensation in lieu of accident which took place on 29.4.2005 when Tractor Trolly M.P. 5 M 0434/MP 5 S 0435 turned turtle resulting in death of Jethulal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. An award was passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla to the tune of Rs.1,62,000/. Aggrieved with the insufficient award, the respondents/ claimants preferred an appeal before this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; M.A. 3615/2006. With the consent of parties therein the matt...
Chandrika Valli Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Chandrika Valli Vs.State of MP & others W.P.No.11396/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, 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 fact that the petitioner is a Daily Wages Employee and in view of the law laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Tiwari versus M.P.State Text Book Corporation LTD.2010 (2) MPHT 469 transfer of the petitioner, a Daily Wages Employee, is not proper. Accordingly, operation of the orders Annexure-P1 dated 5.7.2012 transferring the petitioner and the relieving order Annexure-P2 dated 16.7.2012 is directed to be stayed and petitioner permitted to work at his present place of posting. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ramesh Prasad Khampariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri P.K.Mishra for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same District of Panna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has got only few months for his retirement and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Petitioner is only transferred from one Patwari Halka to another in the same District and, therefore, on the ground of forthcoming retirement of the petitioner interference into the matter is not called for. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedy available, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
General Manager ( R and R ) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.314/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1, 2 & 3. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.4 & 5. I.A.No.4885/12 under Section 149 of CPC for extension of time for payment of deficit court-fee. Alongwith the application, the appellant has paid deficit court- fee. Considering aforesaid, prayer made in the application is allowed. Time period for payment of deficit court-fee is extended till 13.4.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1, 2 & 3 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be summoned. I.A.No.3461/12 for stay After hearing both parties, till further ordeRs.following directions are issued:- (i) Appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount within a period ...
Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma versus State of MP and others W.P.No.10527/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department and by the impugned order dated 10.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred from Jabalpur to Dindori. Records indicate that the petitioner has completed his tenure posting of three years in Jabalpur. Petitioner's own showing indicates that he has been transferred on various occasions. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that in the order of appointment dated 10.5.1993, a condition is stipulated with regard to posting of the petitioner to a place nearest to his home town and as the condition of service is violated, this writ petition is filed. That apart, pointing out various inconveniences of the petitioner and the breach of the transfer policy, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the Stat...
Sunder Lal Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Sundar Lal Jhariya versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11121/2012 30/07/2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey , learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner for encashment of 126 days' Earned Leave is pending consideration before the competent authority i.e.Respondent Nos.3 & 4, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to encashment of 126 days' Earned Leave in accordance with law within a period of two months. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Sushil @ Bhura Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.7.2012 Shri Arubendra Singh, Advocate for applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 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.158/12 registered at P.S.GRP, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself, marg was registered to the effect that deceased Mithun @ Bablu Singh committed suicide on railway track. The offence was registered after 1 years of the incident. Nothing has to be seized from the possession of the applicant. Co-accused Hari Shankar Pandey, Smt. Mithilesh Pandey and Smt. Pooja Pandey have been released on bail by trial Court. Another co-accused Vinay Gautam has been enlarged on anticipatory bail...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »