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.
Rajeev Gandhi College Bhopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 4552/2012 31.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separately in W.P. No. 14932/2010 Jawaharlal Nehru College v. Barkatullah University and others this petition is also disposed of with the following directions: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with Western Regional Committee and respective examining bodies, i.e., Universities, shall take a decision within a period of one month in respect of admissions made for the academic session 200809 as to whether the same was in consonance with the Regulations framed by the 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 norms laid down by the NCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges ...
Prabhat College Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 15298/2010 31.7.2012 Counsel for the parties present. For the reasons stated in the order passed today separately in W.P. No. 14932/2010 Jawaharlal Nehru College v. Barkatullah University and others this petition is also disposed of with the following directions: (i) That, the State Government in coordination with Western Regional Committee and respective examining bodies, i.e., Universities, shall take a decision within a period of one month in respect of admissions made for the academic session 200809 as to whether the same was in consonance with the Regulations framed by the 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 norms laid down by the NCTE. (ii) That, after ascertaining the above, and after having satisfied that the students in respective colleges ...
R.K.Rathore Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
R.K.Rathore versus State & Anr. Writ Petition No.6495 31. 7.2012: Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 17/18.5.99 by which on the basis of an enquiry conducted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition it is not informed that petitioner's services have been terminated due to his involvement in certain criminal case and an appeal in the criminal case is still pending before this Court. Considering the fact that the punishment imposed in this writ petition is only stoppage of increment with cumulative effect and not petitioner is no more in service due to involvement in certain criminal case, for the present, it is not necessary to go into the question on merits. Instead interest of justice would be me...
Gulab Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
31.7.2012 Shri Satyam Agrawal, 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 6.5.2012 in connection with Crime No.63/2012 registered at P.S.Sanchi, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of the IPC Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in- law of deceased Laxmi Bai. The marriage of Laxmi Bai was performed with Jagdish before 6 yeaRs.As per prosecution, the main allegation of committing cruelty is against Jagdish. The allegation against the applicant is that she used to pass sarcastic remarks against Laxmi Bai, due to which she died unnatural death. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, she be released on bail. Learn...
Shivendra Bhushan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 1 Writ Petition No.8651/2012 (PIL) 31.07.2012 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.After hearing the petitioneRs.we admit this petition for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondents no.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 is accep- ted by Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General. Notice on behalf of respondent no.3 is accepted by Shri K.M.Shukla, Advocate. Notice on behalf of respondent no.6 is accepted by Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate. Issue notice to the respondent no.7. Steps within a period of one week by Regd A/D mode. Petitioners to serve copy of this petition along with annex- ures to Shri Kaurav and Shri Shukla, and Shri Singh, Advocates, if not already served and to file acknowledgment in the office. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that he has received instructions from respondent no.3 that entire Pakka construction is complete and only respondent no.3 is required to affix glasses for protection from heat and re- spondent no.3 be permitted t...
Brijesh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1749/2004 Brijesh & Others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri T.S.Ruprah, Senior Advocate, with Shri Harmeet Ruprah, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.9.2004 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.257/2002, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- OFFENCE SENTENCE FINE DEFAULT SENTENCE 32 or 326 read 3 years' R.I. Rs.500/- 6 months R.I. with section 34 of IPC 45.of IPC 3 years' R.I. Rs.200/- 3 months R.I. 323 of IPC - Rs.1,000/- 3 months' R.I. -:- 2 -:- ...
Ashif @ Mamu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
31.7.2012 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA 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.82/2012 registered at P.S.Sultanpur, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 336, 506/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Except the offence under section 327 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable and triable by the Magistrate. The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application and submitted that number of cases are pending against the applicant, therefore, this application is liab...
Dr. Narendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.P.No.12554/11 31/07/12 Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for respondent No.2/State. Aggrieved by the communication dated 3/02/11 issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for participating in the process of selection for appointment to the post of 'Professor' , petitioner had filed this writ petition. Various grounds are raised in this writ petition to show that the petitioner was qualified to participate in the process of selection as contemplated in the advertisement in question, inspite thereof, his candidature has been rejected. Respondents by filing the return have tried to justify their action. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that an interim order was passed by this Court and subject to final decision of this writ petition, petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of selection. As the petitioner had participated in th...
Mithilesh Singh Gaharwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 Mithelesh Singh versus State W.P.No.8263/2012 31/7/2012: Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondents State. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.4. State Government has filed a return and have enclosed a communication Annexure R/1 dated 10.7.2012 written by the petitioner to the Registrar of this Court indicating that he wants to withdraw the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about such a communication made. Considering the same, petitioner is directed to remain personally present before this Court on 9.8.2012 and explain the circumstances as are indicated herein above. Registry is also directed to indicate as to whether any such communication Annexure R/1 has been received in the office and letter is addressed to the Registrar of M.P.High Court. Office to sent notice to the petitioner for his appearance on 9.8.2012. Dealing Assistant shall ensure that th...
Hiralal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.174/1996 Hiralal VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Shri Santosh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.1.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T.No.47/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and sentenced for a term of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and another term of 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, the appellant was married to one Ramlali but, since she was not bl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »