Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Mohammad Jabbar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1028/2012 Mohammad Jabbar and 3 others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri A. Usmani, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Singrauli in Special Case No.07/2010 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the following offences : Section Act Sentence Fine Sentence, in amount default of payment of fine. 147 I.P.C Six months R.I. Nil Nil 148 I.P.C. one year's R.I. R...
M.K.Pathak Vs. Shri Rajan S-katoch
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
30.08.2012. Shri Ashish Pathak for the applicant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. In view of the reply filed by the non-applicants indicating consideration of applicants case by the review DPC and its rejection, not no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case applicant is aggrieved by the manner in which his case is considered and rejected, he may assail the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, this application is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.9547/2012 (Kanhaiyalal versus State of MP and otheRs.30.08.2012 Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Maravi, S.I., Police Station District Seoni present in person. Corpus of the missing person namely Sukhchand has been produced by the investigating officer before this court. He states that the aforesaid Sukhchand was released by the respondents No.6 to 11 and appeared before the police authority and has not been produced before this court. He further states that on the complaint filed by the petitioner a case has been registered and action against the respondents No.6 to 11 is being taken in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the missing person could be traced out only on account of the order passed by this court directing the respondents/police authorities to change the investigating officer and to prevent the present station house officer, Dhooma from interfering in the i...
Smt.Tursen Bisen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Smt. Tursen Bai Bisen versus State & ORS.W.P.No.13589/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for respondents/State. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted after retirement from service, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under : 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and con...
Raj Kishor Mishra Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 W.P No.12087/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.12087/2010 PETITIONER : RAJ KISHOR MISHRA Vs. RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Shri R. P. Tiwari, Govt. Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (30/08/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.12.2005 by which the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner's application seeking permission to join his post of Camp Attendant.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was engaged on Collector Rate as a Work Charged Contingency Pail Employee on compassionate ground on the death of his father and was asked to discharge the duty of Camp Attendant by order dated 16.5.1997. The petitioner remained absent from 1.7.1998 and thereafter reappe...
Navneet Saxena Vs. M.P. State Dairy Co-op. Fed. Ltd.Anda
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 W.P.No.1081/2001 W.P.NO.1081/2001 30.08.2012 Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. Order dated 17.11.2000, passed by the M.P.State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal, which in turn affirm its Judgment dated 1.11.99, are being challenged vide this Writ Petition. By judgment dated 1.11.99, Tribunal dismissed petitioner's Second Appeal directed against the order dated 24.4.99 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co.Operative Societies, which in turn affirmed the order dated 24.8.96 whereby the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies answered the dispute raised by the petitioner against his non-promotion to the post of Project Executive/Assistant Manager, in the negative. Initially appointed on 26.6.1985 as Data- Organizer in Project Monitoring in Planning Division with respondents Madhya Pradesh Dairy Co-operative Federation Limited, petitioner participated for selection to the posts of Project Executive (M & P) / (MIS...
Radha Kishan Munda Vs. Mannu Lal Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.13304 o30. 08.12 Shri Manot Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 19.7.12 (Annex.P/6) passed by the Addl. District Judge (FTC) Pipariya in Co.No.2-A/12 (old No.32- A/10) whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC, the petitioner has been directed to pay the ad-valorum court fees on the valuation of entire sum of the alleged document (Chitthi Rugga) dated 25.9.09, as alleged executed by the respondent in favor of the petitioner accepting the liability to pay the sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order as well as the averments of the petition argued that he has not filed the suit for recovery of the alleged sum of Rs.2,20...
Smt. Dhyankali Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
W.P.No.8195/2012 (Smt. Dhyankali Gond versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 30.08.2012 Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri D.S.Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7. The petitioner has filed this petitioner praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of her husband Chater Singh Gond and her 6 year old son Ajay Gond. It is alleged that petitioner's husband and her son have been illegally detained by respondent Nos.6 and 7. This Court had issued notices to the respondents, pursuant to which the police authorities had filed progress report in which it has been stated that the petitioner's husband was infact an accused in a complaint of theft of poultry lodged by respondent No.6 at Police Station, Panagar, District Jabalpur. It is stated that after enquiry, Chater Singh, petitioner's husband had accepted the commission of the theft and reimbursed to the poultry owner in cash and on t...
Topsingh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.758/1999 Top Singh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.2.1999 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in S.T.No.60/1994, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 13.10.1993, at ab...
Dr. Kamna Acharya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
1 Dr. Kamna Acharya versus State W.P.No.14355/2012 30/8/2012: Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Diwaker, for the petitioneRs.Shri Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioners are working as Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Bhopal and feel aggrieved by the entry made in the CR folder of the petitioners for the period ending 2007 . There are no endorsement in the ACR, the concerned officer who has written the ACR has denied his signature for the period ending 2007. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the Confidential Reports of the petitioners for the period in question has been entered by the competent authority in the CR folder but the authority concerned who made the entry has denied his signature as a result petitioners claim for further promotion are being adversely effected. Petitioners have filed representations in this regard. Orders were passed by the Under Secretary of the department An...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »