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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Haryana Service Station
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.A.No.449/2011 Hindustan Petroleum Corpn M/s Haryana Service Station and others and another 18.7.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for appellants. Shri Shashank Shekhar, counsel for respondent no.1. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the appellants are ready to appoint an officer to the rank of Deputy General Manager as an arbitrator, who shall decide the matter expeditiously, in accordance with the terms of agreement. To this Shri Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has no objection. The dispute in this case is in respect of withholding supply of retail outlet run by respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the termination of retail outlet, in which the appellants herein moved an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, making a prayer that as per the agreement the matter may be referred to the arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The aforesaid application was ...
Avadh Bihari Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1....W.A.No.761 o18. 7.2012 Shri Praveen Verma, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Counsel for respondents No.1,2 and 3. Issue show cause notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondents No.1,2,3 is accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh and prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter. Prayer is allowed. Issue notice to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant be permitted to serve respondent No.4 Hamdust. Prayer is allowed. On payment of P.F.in this regard, office to prepare and handover the notices to the counsel for the appellant for service on respondent No.4 by the appellant. Notice be made returnable within 3 weeks. Be listed for hearing in the 3rd week of August,2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Smt. Aasha Bai Jhariya Vs. Raj Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Criminal Appeal No.2340/2011 18.07.2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State. Heard on admission. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Special Act.).Mandla in Special Case No.49/2009 whereby the respondent No.1 was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that a typed FIR was filed by the prosecutrix/appellant before the police station concerned after 14 days of the incident. The trial Court has rightly observed that the story told by the prosecutrix is not believable. There is possibility that the respondent No.1 is falsely implicated in the matter. Under such circumstances, acquittal directed by the trial Court appears t...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nuruddin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.A.No.1295/2011 State of M.P.& others Nuruddin 18.7.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for appellants. Shri Ashok Gupta, counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.3.2010 in W.P.No.13824/2006, by which the learned Single Judge found that the respondent was entitled for the benefit of Pension Rules, 1979 and his pension benefits be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his retirement till payment. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly taken the date of classification as permanent employee of respondent as 29.7.1991, while the order of Labour Court was passed on 24.7.1996 and if the date of passing of order 24.7.1996 is taken into consideration, the respondent has not completed qualifying service. It was submitted that on the aforesaid ground this appeal may be admitted after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We have perused the record and find that vide order dated 24.7.1996 the respond...
Shambhu Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.915/2009 Shambhu Prasad Tiwari and three others Vs. State of M.P. ........................................................................................................... For the appellants : Shri Manot Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 18th day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.45/2008 whereby the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of I.P.C and the appellant no.1 was sentenced for three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- whereas the remaining appellants are sentenced by imp...
Deendayal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.P.No.8914 / 2012 (Deendayal Patel versus State of M.P.& two otheRs.18-07-2012 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent No.7 has abducted his daughter, Parwati, and in spite of complaints to the police no action is being taken by them against the respondent No.7. Notices were issued to the respondents and the learned Government Advocate was directed to produce the daughter of the petitioner before this Court. The daughter of the petitioner has been produced by Shri Jagannath Markam, S.D.O.(P).Ajaygarh, District Panna, today before this Court. The petitioner and his wife have also been permitted to interact with the daughter. It is stated by the daughter that she has not been abducted by the respondent No.7 and she has entered into marriage with him and is living with him on her own free will. In view of the aforesaid statements of the petitioner's dau...
Smt. Shashi Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
W.A.No.973/2011 Smt.Shashi Chouhan State of M.P.& others 18.7.2012 Shri Brahmadatt Singh, counsel for appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.9.2009 in W.P.No.3076/2009(S).by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner for her notional appointment since 1996 along with monetary benefits was dismissed by the Single Bench. The facts of the case are that the appellant was selected for nurses training in the year 1996, but no training was arranged for the petitioner and ultimately in the year 2008 she was sent for training and after completion of nurses training, she was appointed as nurse. Thereafter petitioner approached to this Court seeking aforesaid relief. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner can neither claim appointment w.e.f.1996, not any monetary benefit can be extended to the petitioner in the matter, which was filed after nearabout 12 years of arising cause of action. This order is under challenge in this appeal. Though the learned counsel...
Shaligram Goutam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 W.P.No.7193/2012 Shaligram Goutam versus State of M.P.& ORS.18.07.2012 Heard Shri Prashant K Badarya learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent police authorities to decide the petitioner's representation, Annexure P-3, received by the respondents on 21.2.2012 and 23.2.2012. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before respondent no.3 within fifteen days, the said authority shall deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter taking all facts and...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Satyavrata Taran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
WA No.740 of 2012. 18.7.2012. Shri Jaideep Singh for the appellants. I.A.No.7800/12 seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order It is submitted by the appellant that the certified copy of the order has been filed in W.A.No.539/12 which has already been entertained by this Court and in the present case the appellant has filed Photostat copy of the impugned order which is common in all the matteRs.Considering the aforesaid, at present we exempt the appellants from filing the certified copy of the order passed by the Single Bench. It is submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the State that in other matter, appeal has been entertained and interim order has been passed. He has referred an order dt.16.5.12 in W.A.No.539/12. In view of the aforesaid,we direct issuance of notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a period of one week by RAD. Notice be made returnable before next date of hearing. Be listed on 26.7.2012 for analogous hearing wit...
Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1 W.P.No.6004/2012 Mahendra Kumar Gupta versus State of M.P.& ORS.18.07.2012 Shri Rajmani Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking security before the police authorities in case occasion arises giving specific and clear reasons for the same. In case the petitioner does so, the police authority, i.e.the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur shall look into the matter in accordance with law. In view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »