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.
Prasoon Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
W.P.No.9020/2012 (Prasoon Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.07.2012 Heard Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation/ objection regarding relinquishment deed dated 30.10.07, which is pending before the respondent No.2. A caveat application No.1182/12 has been filed by caveators Girish Bai, Bhagat Singh, Jogendra Singh and Pushpendra Singh, wherein they have stated that they be heard in case any direction or order is passed on a petition being filed by one Swati Shrivastava or Prasoon Shrivastava, assailing the order passed in revision case No.115/ A-6/2011-12 Smt. Swati Shrivastava versus Bhagat Singh and others pending before the court of Tahsildar, Chhindwara. However, on examination the learned counsel for the caveator submits that as the present petition does not relate to the aforesaid revenu...
The Commissioner Vs. Vichar Bharti Education Society
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
I.T.A.No.54/2012 The Commissioner of Income Vichar Bharti Education Society, Tax, Bhopal Bhopal 6.7.2012 Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for appellant. It was submitted by Shri Lal that on an identical issue another appeal I.T.A.No.190/2009 filed by the Revenue was admitted by this Court on 16.12.2009. In view of aforesaid statement made by Shri Lal, we admit this appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.53,04,429/- being the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets even when entire expenditure incurred towards purchase of fixed assets has already been claimed in entirety either in the current year or in earlier years and if depreciation is allowed on such assets it would amount to double deduction ?.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addit...
Vishal Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.754/1996 Vishal VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Siddharth Datt, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 6th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in S.T.No.328/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under sections 333 of IPC and sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant was to undergo for 4 months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine amount.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 31.5.1993 at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning, the co...
Chatrapal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
06.07.2012. Shri Rakesh Singh for the petitioner. Petitioner was an employee of the Janpad Sabha and thereafter his services have been taken over. Interalia contending that the services rendered by the petitioner in the local bodies or the Janpad Sabha has to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits, this writ petition is filed. Question similar in nature has been considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 27.11.2003, wherein certain directions have been given. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) and decide his claim after taking note of the principles laid down there and the facts as may be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy ...
Sanjay @ Sanju @ Kalu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1039/2012 Sanjay @ Sanju @ Kalu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri A.R.S. Chouhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 6th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.4.2012 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST. No.412/2011 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C and sentenced for 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for one month's simple imprisonment.2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 2...
Manoj Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1 W.P.No.3819/2012 Manot Gupta versus State of M.P.& ORS.06.07.2012 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities on the fiRs.information report lodged by the petitioner against respondent no.7. The respondent nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 have filed a return while respondent nos.2, 3 & 7 have not filed a return inspite of notice. The respondent nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 in the return have stated that the police authorities have already initiated action in compliance of the petitioner's report and are conducting investigation into the same. It is stated that they have sought information from respondent nos.2 & 3 which has not been received by them till date. It has further been stated that on enquiry and after receiving information, if it is found that the respondent no.7 is committing any crime, they would certainly take action against respondent no.7 and others in ...
Narayan Hedaoo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1 06.07.2012: Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents. Petitioner belongs to Halba Community, which falls in the Scheduled Tribe Category. Certain benefits were granted to the petitioner on this count and on the ground that benefit was granted incorrectly, the same is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the benefit and consequential action taken is challenged by the petitioner in this case. It is stated by the petitioner that in his case no report was called from the High Power Committee. The question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner belongs to Halba community and whether he is entitled to the benefit, being member of Scheduled Tribe community. Even though respondents have tried to justify their action by filing a detailed return but during the pendency of this petition, policy with regard to granting benefit to the Halba community has undergone change and a policy decision was taken by th...
Satya Samarpan Society Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
W.P.No.5774 / 2012 (Satya Samarpan Society, Chhatarpur..v.State of M.P.& otheRs.06-07-2012 Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gopal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the action being taken against him by the respondent No.3 on the ground that the competent authority to take action against the petitioner is the Collector. In the circumstances, looking to the fact that the matter is already pending before the authority, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector, Chhatarpur, by filing a representation before him in accordance with law bringing to his notice the petitioner's grievance. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct...
Baldev Singh Marawi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
W.P.No.15188 / 2011 (Baldev Singh Marawi & another..v.State of M.P.& otheRs.06-07-2012 Shri M.K.Choursia, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anil Dwivedi, learned counsel for the caveator. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition against the inaction on the part of the respondents No.6 to 10 in spite of the fact that a report has been submitted by the Deputy Director, Social Justice, Dindori and letters has been issued by the Jila Panchayat, Dindori to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dindori on 7-6-2011 asking him to take action under Section 40 of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of the respondent No.7 on caveat submits that he has been the Panchayat Secretary and has already been removed pursuant to the order passed by the Collector against which he has filed an appeal before the Commissioner in which there is an interim order and, therefore, action against him has alre...
S.K. Signh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1 Criminal Rev No.199/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR (SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE SHRI M.A. SIDDIQUI, J.Criminal Rev No.199/2012 S.K. Singh APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT Shri Manish Datt Sr. Adv. with Ajay Mishra, Adv. for applicant. Shri A.K. Chourasiya, Govt. Adv. for respondent/State. Order Reserved on 03.07.2012 Order Passed on 05.07.2012 ORDER This criminal revision u/s 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed in order to quash the charge for an offence u/s 306 of IPC which has been framed on applicant vide order dated 10.01.2012 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.54/2011.2. It is an admitted fact that deceased Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, (R.K. Agarwal) who was working as Rural Garden Extension Horticulture Development Officer, was transferred from Katni to Jabalpur and applicant Santosh Kumar Singh ( S.K. Singh) was transferred from Government Garden Jiyawan Deosar, Dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- Next ›
- Last »