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.
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...
Gyanodaya College of Education Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
1 W.P. No. 15118/2010 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 ...
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 ...
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 -:- ...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Damodarlal Vs. Sanjay Singh Chouhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
S.A. No.232 of 2012 31.07.2012: Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: I. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit recording the finding that the suit shop is not of the ownership of the appellant and in view of the material so available on record, such finding is perverse?. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks'. Learned counsel contends that I.A. No.7773/2012 has been filed on 10/7/2012 seeking stay of recovery of rent amount received by the appellant on deposit made by respondent, but said application has not been attached to the file. Every day while hearing the cases it is seen that the interlocutory applications filed by parties or advocates even prior to one week or fortnight ar...
Rachna Chandel Vs. Rani Durgavati University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
W.P.No.9800 / 2012 (Rachna Chandel versus Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur) 31-07-2012 Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, for the respondent/University. As directed by this Court, the learned Government Advocate has kept present Dr. Varsha Agluuc, Assistant Professor, Department of Zeology and Biotechnology, Govt. Model Science College, Jabalpur, who examined the answer sheets of the petitioner and found difference of only 01 mark at best. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/University is that the petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and no case for grant of any relief is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. As directed earlier, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.500/- with an additional amount of Rs.100/- towards expenses to the aforesaid examiner in the Court itself. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »