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.
Bal Gangadhar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.17087/2011 Bal Gangadhar Khare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Shri D.K. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri U.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (13/07/2012) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a claim for quashment of order dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-7) and a writ direction commanding the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer on contract basis w.e.f. 20.12.2010 till date.2. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer by the respondent-State on 1...
Ram Nath and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1....Cr.A.No.2272 o13. 7.2012 Shri L.N.Sankle, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, G.A.for the respondents. I.A.8968/12 for suspension of sentence and release on bail to appellant No.2 Govind. This is the 4th application filed on behalf of the appellant No.2. His earlier applications were dismissed on 6.5.2006, 9.11.2009 and 12.11.2010. The second application which was decided on 9.11.2009 was considered on merits. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue the case on merits and also on the ground that since last seven yeaRs.the appellant is in jail and hering of this appeal may take some time so the sentence of the appellant No.2 Govind may be suspended and he may be released on bail. So far as the merits of the case a concerned, the appellant appears to be the main culprit who inflicted injury by Genti on the head of the deceased. Though there was only injury on the head of the deceased but the appellant No.2 appears to be main accused and looking to the nature an...
Anil Vs. Smt. Mamta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1....M.C.C.No.754 o13. 7.2012 Shri Wakeel Khan, Counsel for the applicant. Ms.Aparna Singh, Counsel for the respondents. This application is filed for restoration of F.A.283/2008 which was dismissed in default because of non-compliance of a peremptory order dated 7.10.2009. This application is barred by limitation of near about three yeaRs.for which applicant has filed another application I.A.7343/12 under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Considering the fact that the default was in respect of non-furnishing the list of documents to be included in the paper book, we find it appropriate to allow both the applications but because of inordinate delay in filing this application we find it appropriate to impose cost of Rs.1,000/- on the applicant which shall be paid by the applicant to the non-applicant by money order. The applicant shall make payment of the aforesaid cost by payment of the aforesaid amount through Money Order or Pay order payable on the name of the non-applicant and not furnis...
Bhola Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 Cr. A. No.710/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.710/2007 Bhola Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Smt. Durgesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 13th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bhopal in special case No.4/04, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8-C/20-B(2-C) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced for one years R.I. with fine of `1,00,000/- and an additional one year's S.I. in default of pay...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.K. Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1....W.A.No.731 o13. 7.2012 Parties present. It is submitted by Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. A.G.for the State that against the order passed by the Full Bench dated 17.2.2012 on Reference, four SLPs have been preferred before the Apex Court. A prayer is made on bahelf of the appellant and also on behalf of the State for grant of four weeks time to apprise this Court in respect of out come of the SLPs. The prayer is opposed by Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 but considering the fact that the Supreme Court has re-opened on 2.7.2012 after Summer Vacation, we find it appropriate to allow further two weeks time to the appellant and for the State to apprise this Court in respect of out come of the SLPs. List for hearing in the 1st week of August,2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Shailendra Tiwari Vs. Principal Army Public School No.1
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 W.P.No.9142/2012 Shailendra Tiwari versus Army Public School & ORS.13.07.2012 Shri S.R.Tamrakar learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Atulanand Awasthy learned counsel for the respondents. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State. On the request of this Court, the learned Govt. Advocate for the State has made available Dr.V.B. Das, P.G.T, Christ Church Boys' Senior Secondary School for examining the answer sheets of the petitioner. On going through the same he submits that at best there could be a variation of and 1 mark respectively in the two copies and, therefore, there is actually no change of the marks awarded even on re- examining of the answer copies. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. The petitioner shall deposit the cost, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous occasion, of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with the M.P.High Court Legal Services Authority today itself. ( R.S.JHA ) JU...
Ghasiram Sendhor Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1029/1997 Ghasiram Sendhor VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.K.Samaiya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 13th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15.4.1997 passed by learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore in Special case No.215/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') and section 323 of IPC and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500...
Smt. Rajkumari Gupta Vs. Smt. Rani Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 F.A.No.355/2012 Smt.Rajkumari Gupta & others Smt.Rani Gupta & others 13.7.2012 Shri Manot Jain, Counsel for appellants. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Counsel for respondents. I.A.No.3875/12 under Order 41 rule 5 of CPC and I.A.No.5213/12 filed by the appellants for modification of the order dated 9.4.2012 This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2012 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in R.C.S.No.438-A/2008 by which the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the respondents and against the appellants for possession, mesne-profit from 24.9.2007 till vacation of the house at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. On 9.4.2012, this appeal was admitted and an exparte interim order was passed which reads thus:- As an interim measure, it is directed that on appellants' depositing the decretal amount and continuing to deposit without default Rs.10,000/- per month as decreed, the execution of decree in so far as it relates to delivery of possession shall re...
Rajendra Nema Vs. Smt. Richa Nema
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
F.A.No.658/2012 Rajendra Nema Smt.Richa Nema 13.7.2012 Shri Rajendra Gupta, counsel for appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.5.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Judge to the Court of FiRs.Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No.104- A/2011, by which the trial Court has directed payment of maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,000/- per month, Rs.5,000/- lump sum as litigation expenses and Rs.200/- to the respondent for attending the case, on the date of hearing before the trial Court. It is submitted by the appellant that the amount is on higher side. The appellant is a reporter of newspaper and is unable to make payment of aforesaid amount. It was also submitted that the respondent has also initiated proceedings under section 498-A of I.P.C., while the appellant has filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Narsinghpur. It is submitted that this appeal may be admitted against the impugned order. From the perusal of impugned...
General Manager Narmada Hydro Electric Development Corporation Vs. Ash ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 F.A.No.626/2012 General Manager (R&R) Ashwamegh Singh & others 13.7.2012 Shri A.J.Pawar, 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.7045/12 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 22.6.2012, 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 & 4 by Shri Pandey, Dy.AG. I.A.No.6822/12 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 fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »