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.
Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Vs. Messers Jai Durga Patra Bhandar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
S.A.No.739/2012 27.07.2012 Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellant. Today the case is listed to consider I.A.No.8021/2012, which is an application for conversion of second appeal into civil revision. Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press this application. Accordingly, I.A.No.8021/2012 stands dismissed as not pressed. It is seen from the record that valuation of the suit was Rs.13,400/- for recovery of money. As per Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal shall lie from the decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. In that view of the matter, second appeal is not maintainable, hence this is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for return of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the Court fee with liberty to file civil revision. Prayer seems to be reasonable and in view of dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable, Co...
General Manager (R and R) Vs. Narayan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.466/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.5. I.A.No.7076/12 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. Notice on behalf of respondent no.5 is accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.Issue notice to the other respondents. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be summoned. I.A.No.5229/12 for stay 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 for t...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shikha Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
R.P.No.547/2012 27.07.2012 Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Seeking review of the order dated 13/12/2011 passed in M.A.No.2636/2009, this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in the fiRs.line of page-3 deduction was made 1/3 while calculation has been made by the Court as per 1/4th deduction, however, accepting the dependency, 1/3 calculation may be made and the order may be reviewed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it reveals that number of dependents are four, however, the deduction is required to be made1/4 in place of 1/3. In the fiRs.line of page -3 of the order 1/3 has been written due to typographical error. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with direction that in line No.1 of page No.3 of the order dated 13/12/2011 passed in M.A.No.2636/2009 in place of 1/3 it be read as 1/4. The calculation so made is foun...
Prahalad Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1300/2012 30.07.2012 Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A.for State/respondent. Record of the trial Court was called on 17.7.2012 but not received. Heard on I.A.No.14594/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicant . Applicant has been convicted u/s 326 IPC and sentenced to R.I.for one year and fined of Rs.500/-vide judgment and finding dated 4.9.2008 in Criminal Case no.146/08 by J.M.F.C Nainpur; in Cri. appeal No.227/08 vide judgment dated 4.7.12 of Iind Addl. Sessions Judge Mandla has partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to R.I for 3 months . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has been deposited. Looking to the nature of punishment and the nature of the case and the fact that this revision is not likely to be heard and disposed of at an early date I.A.not is allowed. It is directed that if the accused/applicant Prahalad Uikey pays the fine and furnishes personal bond to the t...
General Manager (Randr) Vs. Satyendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
F.A.No.521/2012 30.7.2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.J.Pawar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A for respondents No.2 to 4. I.A.No.7268/12 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 27.6.2012, 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 to 4 by Shri Singh, Dy.G.A.Record of the reference Court and Land Acquisition Officer be summoned. I.A.No.5849/12 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...
R.K.Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
30.07.2012. Shri S.P.Pandey for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer (Civil) in PHE Sub Division Umariya and by the impugned order he has been transferred from Umariya to Sub Division Nasrullaganj, District Sehore. Challenge to the order of transfer is not made on the ground of any statutory rule or regulation being violated. Challenge to the transfer is made on the ground of personal inconvenience and family probleMs.These grounds are to be considered by the competent authority of the respondents and, therefore, directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petition, the petition is disposed of. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Jagdish Kumar Irpanche Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Jagdish Kumar Irpanche versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.10851 30. 7.2012: Shri Vivek Rusia with Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as Principal in Government Higher Secondary School Saarna, Tehsil and District Chhindwara. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Government Girls Higher Secondary School Parasiya in the same District of Chhindwara and in his place respondent No.4 has been transferred. Interalia contending that respondent No.4 has been granted posting of his choice by disturbing petitioner by allowing his representation, transfer is illegal, petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that earlier posting of respondent no.4 has been cancelled and he is being posted in place of petitioner after his representation is allowed. Merely because representation of ...
M/S Devas Traders Vs. Prem Prakash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr. Rev. No.82/2012 30.7.2012. Shri Ashok Chakravarty, Adv.for the petitioner. Heard. Perused the record of trial Court. Complaint case 239/09 filed by petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been dismissed by learned JMFC, Raisen on 19.1.11 for want of prosecution though respondent was called. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on single bench decisions of this Court in Right Services, Ratlam versus Chhotu Bhaiya Road Lines, Ratlam 2003 (2) MPLJ 52 and Vijay Singh versus Surendra Singh ILR (2010) MP 234.wherein it has been held that complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act ordinarily should not be dismissed on single non-appearance. Since the respondent was not served, so Court below ought to have waited for the Advocate who was appearing for the petitioner. Order dated 19.1.11 is haRs.and strict and is liable to be quashed. It is hereby quashed. Complaint Case No.239/09 is restored to its original number. Trial Court shall re-register...
Bablu @ Suresh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Cr.R.No.1425/12 30.7.2012 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, Adv.for applicant. Shri Pushpendra Singh,P.L.for respondent /State. With the consent of learned counsel of the parties heard finally. Applicant Babloo alias Suresh has been convicted u/s34(2) of M.P.Excise Act and sentenced to R.I.for 3 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of fine further R.I.for six months vide judgment and finding dated 16.7.2012 in Criminal Case no.4492/06 by CJ.M.Damoh; in Cri. appeal No.99/12 vide judgment dated 18.7.12 of Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge Damoh has dismissed the application for bail in the appeal hence this revision petition for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant filed criminal appeal before Sessions Judge Damoh who vide order dated 18.7.2012 rejected the application for suspension of sentence, however, the appeal is still pending. Applicant is already in jail since 16.7.2012. In the aforesaid circumstances this revision is is allowed. It is directed that jail s...
Siddharth Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1 Siddharth Khare versus State W.P.No.11202/2012 30/7/2012: Shri S.R.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Sub Engineer, Nagar Parishad, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Nagar Palika Kareli, District Narsinghpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has been posted in the present place only on 2.11.2010 and therefore, the transfer within the short period o1. 2 years is unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the State submits that on 2.11.2010 petitioner was transferred from Nagar Panchayat Amarpatan to Nagar Parishad Rampur Baghelan in the same District of Satna and therefore, the same cannot be termed as frequent transfer. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of grounds raised in this writ petition, finding no reason to interfere into an administrative order of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »