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.
Rama Prasanna Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.18365/2010(s) 10/07/2012 Shri P.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Ku.Reena Thakur, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, who has been impleaded as Respondent No.4 by virtue of the order passed on 11.1.2012 allowing an amendment. The amendment has not been incorporated. Learned counsel is directed to incorporate the amendment during the couRs.of the day. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer since 23 years and grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.4 has been regularized, whereas claim of the petitioner has not been considered for regularization. Even though, the matter is pending since 2 yeaRs.respondents have not filed any reply. On the contrary the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court an order passed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.20402/2011 (Babbu Singh...
The State of M.P. Vs. Nokelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1798/1996 State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS Nokelal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ appellant. Shri Sanjay Prakash Verma, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 10th day of July, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.2.1995 passed by learned CJM, Panna in criminal case No.56/1992, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (1) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter it shall be referred to as 'P.F. Act') 2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, the appellant Food Inspector was posted in district Panna as a Food Inspector to work in the entire district. On 22.8.1...
Ram Murti Tiwari and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2374 OF 199.Ram Murti Tiwari & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Masood Ali, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (10/07/2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/10/1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Special Act.), Sagar in Special Case No.101/1997 whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-each. They have to undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment in de...
Lt. Col. H. K. Janbaz Vs. M. P. Waqf Board Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.1672/2012 (Lt. Col. H.K.Janbaz versus M.P.Waqf Board & anr.) 10.07.2012 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Saleem Rehman, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Mukhtar Ahamed, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition stating that the petitioner who was appointed as Executive Officer of Waqf Anjuman Islamia, Jabalpur is not being permitted to perform his duties by the respondent No.2 and has been thrown out from his office and is not being permitted to enter the same. It is further stated that the issue regarding the petitioner's appointment etc.is pending before the Tribunal in case No.115/09 Muttawali Anjuman Islamia versus M.P.Waqf Board and others in which the Muttawali Committee had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., which has been rejected by order dated 03.02.2010, inspite of which the respondent No.2 is not permitting the pet...
Suraj Narayan Singh Vs. Chief Mining Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :16858. of 2010 Suraj Narayan Singh - V/s - Chief Mining Manager, MP State Mining Corporation Ltd and otheRs.Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Sangeeta Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K.Verma, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 10/07/2012 Contending that petitioner has not been promoted and his juniors respondents 4 to 6, have been promoted ignoring his claim, this writ petition is filed. 2- Petitioner is working as Mining Mate in the MP State Mining Corporation Limited and at the relevant time, when this writ petition was filed, he was posted at Tikamgarh. Petitioner claims to be a person having passed the Mining Foremans Certificate conducted by the Directorate of Mines Safety and it ...
Neelu @ Rajendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.2909/2012 (Neelu @ Rajendra versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 10.07.2012 Shri D.D.Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is undergoing sentence and is lodged in prison, has filed this petition claiming premature release by giving him the benefit of remission in accordance with the circulars of the State Government prevailing prior to issuance of the circular dated 10.01.2012 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana & ORS.versus Jagdish AIR 201.SC 1690. It is submitted that the respondents authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for release from prison in accordance with law and therefore, they be directed to reconsider the case of petitioner in accordance with law and the aforesaid judgment. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner's case for release shall be cons...
Ram Sevak Patidar Vs. Narayan Singh Patidar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3611/11 10.7.2012: Shri Rajesh Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for respondent. Arguments heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his application, under Sections 45 and 47 read with 73 of the Evidence Act, for subjecting the documents in the form of agreement dated 2.12.06 and receipt dated 2.11.08, to examination by an Handwriting Expert. Corresponding trial is pending as Criminal Case No.3568/09 before Shri Sanjay Verma, JMFC, Bhopal. In that case, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken upon a complaint made by the respondent. Vide order-dated 4.2.11, the petitioners application was rejected for the following reasons (i) An earlier application for the same relief had already been rejected on 12.11.2009 without granting liberty to him to revive the prayer at a later s...
Deena Nath Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.629 OF 201.Dinanath Mishra & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 10th day of July, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 17/3/2010 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Satna in ST No.104/2009, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part- II) read with Section 34 and Section 323/34 of IPC (4 counts) and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and one year's rigorous i...
Vijay Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.4045/2012 (Vijay Patel versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 10.07.2012 Shri Anil Khare, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri P.S.Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is undergoing sentence and is lodged in prison, has filed this petition claiming premature release by giving him the benefit of remission in accordance with the circulars of the State Government prevailing prior to issuance of the circular dated 10.01.2012 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana & ORS.versus Jagdish AIR 201.SC 1690. It is submitted that the respondents authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for release from prison in accordance with law and therefore, they be directed to reconsider the case of petitioner in accordance with law and the aforesaid judgment. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner's case for rele...
K.L. Banjare Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.8343/2012 10/07/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the suspension order Annexure-P5 dated 23.5.2012. It is stated by the petitioner that earlier on the same set of circumstances, petitioner was suspended vide order dated 25.4.2012, which has been stayed by this Court in W.P.No.7032/2012(s) vide order Annexure-P2 dated 14.5.2012 and to circumvent the aforesaid order, by giving the different reason, which is not at all tenable, petitioner is being suspended again. Records indicated that Respondents were directed to file reply and time was granted to them on 18.6.2012 and again on 6.7.2012, inspite of the same, no reply is forthcoming from the respondents. Keeping in view the aforesaid, operation of the order Annexure-P5 dated 23.5.2012 shall remain stayed and petitioner permitted to work. However, it is directed that if respondents so desire...
- ‹ Prev
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›
- Last »