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.
icici Bank Litd Vs. Suresh Chandra Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
W.A.No.1240 of 2011 W.A.No.1240 of 2011 W.A.No.1241 o25. 7.2012. Shri V.S.Shroti, Sr.counsel assisted by Shri Jitendra Shrivastava for the appellants. Shri Wajid Hyder for respondent No.1. This order shall decide the Writ Appeal No.1240/2011 and Writ Appeal No.1241/2011 in which controveRs.is identical and subsequent event in respect of settlement of the matter between the parties is also identical. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.A.No.1240/11 for the convenience. Shri Shroti, learned senior counsel submits that the claim of respondent No.1 has been settled and the application filed by the appellant u/s 14 of the Securitization Act before the District Magistrate has been withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in these appeals,but, he submits that the question involved in these appeals that whether a borrower is required an opportunity of hearing on filing an application u/s 14 of the Securitization Act before the District Magistrate, can be decided in this wr...
General Manager ( R and R ) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.485/2012 25.7.2012 Shri S.Sunder, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.2,3 & 4. I.A.No.6013/12 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 11.5.2012, the date on which deficit court-fee was paid. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2, 3 & 9 by Shri Pandey, Dy.AG. I.A.No.5465/12 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 of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish security for the remaining amount as is required und...
Dhan Raj @ Dandua Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.349/1997 Dhan Raj @ Dandua VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Som Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 25th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.1.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khandwa in Special case No.42/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under sections 452 of IPC and section 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment for each count.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 29.3.1996, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was staying in her house all alone situated in front of Vijay Dal Mill, ...
Satish Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.A.No.1287/2011 Satish Chouksey The State of M.P.& others 25.7.2012 Shri Ankit Saxena, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents No.1,4 & 5. Shri Amalpushp Shroti, Counsel for respondent No.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition No.2712/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.2 Shanti Prasad Ahirwar was allowed and the appointment of the appellant on the post of Panchayat-karmi was set aside. The crucial question before the Single Bench was whether the appellant was minot on the last date of filing an application for the post. It is not disputed before this Court that on the last date of filing of the application for the post of Panchayat-karmi, the appellant was minor, but contention of the appellant was that on the date on which the application was considered by the authority, the appellant was major. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the relevant date for c...
State Bank of India Vs. Amar Pratap Kharare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
W.A.No.413 o25. 7.2012. Shri Ashish Shroti for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that :1. The Single Bench erred in directing reconsideration of the application filed by the respondent for compassionate appointment as the father of the respondent has died on 14.11.2004 and after a period of 8 years such consideration could not have been directed; 2. During the pendency of the writ petition policy of the Bank itself has changed, but, consideration has been directed which means the consideration of the application on the policy which was in force at the time of filing of the application.3. Documents which were required for consideration of the application were not filed for a considerable long period,but, in spite of this, learned single Judge has directed for reconsideration of the application. From perusal of the order dt.28.2.2012, we find that the contention No.1 and 3 were not raised or pressed before the learned single Judge. So far as contention No.3 is c...
Ramkali Vs. Harshnarayan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
S.A. No.1136 of 2011 25.07.2012: Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 19.09.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Civil Appeal No.19A/2007 whereby the finding with respect to execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs has been affirmed while on the point of possession finding has been recorded that they are entitled to get possession on the disputed land by Supurdgi. 2. Plaintiff's case in brief was that plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the real brothers and the suit has been filed by the Rameshwar Prasad, who is the father of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 as power of attorney holder. It is said that the father of defendant no.3 Ram Pratap as well as defendants no.1 and 2 were real brothers. In the disputed land of Survey No.166/1, 167/2, 184/1, 185/1, 186/1, 187/1, 188/1, ...
Drig Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.2298/2011 25/07/2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondents/State. Petitioner was working as a Constable in the Police Department. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner imputing two allegations, it was alleged against the petitioner on 13.6.2007 while on official duty as a Driver of vehicle not M.P.03-5687, petitioner was found to have driven the vehicle in a busy market place fully drunken and similarly it is alleged that on the same day, he has broken the doors in the police line quarteRs.For the said Act, a charge-sheet was issued and a departmental enquiry was conducted and as petitioner did not appear inspite of the repeated notices issued, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the impugned order Annexure-P1 dated 30.4.2009 is passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been already dismissed, petitioner has filed this writ p...
Nandram Vs. Kanchedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
S.A. No.59 of 2009 25.07.2012: Shri Pradeep Naveriya and Ajay Sen, Advocates for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2008, passed in Civil Appeal No.12A/2008, by the Ist Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh confirming the finding recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.01.2008, passed in Civil Suit No.18A/2006, by Civil Jude Class II, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, this appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed.2. It is to be noted that a suit filed seeking declaration of the title with respect to the land situated in Village Karmoura of Araji No.1241, Rakwa 61 Aare, 1244, 1/8th part i.e. 11 Aare of Rakwa 28 Aare. Araji No.1222, 1224, 1225, 1229, 1230, 1240, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1221/1244, Rakwa 121 Aare, 85 Aare, 214 Aare, 125 Arre, 879 Arre 109 Aare, 49 Aare, 24 Aare, 24 Aare, 134 Aare, 69 Aare, 129 Aare respe...
Mohd. Aadil Qureshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
W.A.No.1059 o25. 7.2012. Shri Ajay Raizada for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey,Dy.AG for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dt.19.8.2011 in W.P.No.11820/2011(S) by which a writ petition preferred by the petitioner against an order dt.2.7.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of judgment passed by the Apex court in Prakash Singh and others versus Union of India and others (2006) 8 SCC 1 , Pramod Kumar and another versus Bihar Vyavssyik SanghaRs.Morcha & others (2007)_7 SCC 65.and State of U.P.versus Chhotey Lal,(2011) 2 SCC 55.(para36) the appellant was entitled to remain at his place of posting for minimum period of two years and could not have been transferred before completion of the period until unless the case of the appellant falls within the exception. It was submitted that the representation of the appellant was wrongly rejected by the...
General Manager ( R and R ) Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
FiRs.Appeal No.303/2012 25.7.2012 Shri S.Sunder, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents No.2,3 & 4. I.A.No.4876/12 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 is accepted by Shri Upadhyaya and on behalf of respondents No.2, 3 & 9 by Shri Pandey, Dy.AG. I.A.No.3436/12 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 of one month before the reference Court. (ii) Appellant shall also furnish security for the remaining amount as is required und...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »