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.
Bablu @ Saieem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.1025 o6. 8.2012. Shri A.Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pushpraj Singh, learned PL for respondent/State. Heard on IA No.14437/12, an application for urgent hearing. Since, petitioner is reported to be in jail since 28.6.10 in this case, hence, this application is allowed. This is a revision preferred by petitioner Bablu @ Saleem feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.07, delivered by Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore in Criminal Appeal No.19/07 by which judgment dated 22.01.07 delivered by CJM, Sehore in Criminal Case No.1193/04 has been confirmed whereby petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for one year R.I.and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding of conviction of the petitioner but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner...
Mahesh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
Cr. Rev. No.878/2012 6.8.2012. Shri Rakesh Khare, Adv.for the applicant. Shri Sameer Chile, GA for State. Heard on admission. Perused the record. The petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA 10024/12, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Applicant has been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to R.I.for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-by JMFC,Bhopal in RT No.83/04 on 27.12.2010. In Criminal Appeal No.33/2011, learned 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhopal on 18.4.12 has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 18.4.12. He submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. Counsel submits that if the remaining jail sentence is not suspended, then this petition will become futile. Learned GA appearing for State opposes the prayer of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it i...
Ganga Prasad Vs. Nand Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
S.A. No.635/2009 06.08.2012 Shri R.P. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Heard on admission. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs losing from the two Courts below assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2009 passed by the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.59-A/2008 and the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 passed by the trial Court in C.S. No.216-A/2008.2. Defendant No.1 was the purchaser of land of Khasra Nos.245 and 447(old) and Khasra Nos.265 and 268 (new) 58 decimal situated in village Sursa Khurd, tahsil Raipur Karchuliyan, district Rewa by registered sale deed dated 29.11.1965 from Brijkumar. At the time of mutation dispute arose due to objection raised by Ramkumar, who is legal heir of Sitaram, however, a suit was filed before the Court seeking declaration that the sale deed executed by Brijkumar with respect to the said land in favour of the defendant No.1 is void ab initio because it is an ancestral p...
Shabir Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.7415/2012 M.Cr.C.No.7777/2012 6/08/2012 Shri Manish Datt with Shri Yogesh Soni and Shri Gyan Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. As these applications are arising out of the same crime number therefore, these are being decided by this common order. Heard. These are the fiRs.bail application filed by applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicants have been arrested on 28/05/12, 1/06/12 in connection with Crime No.95/12 registered at P.S.Silwani, District Raisen for the offence punishable under section 429/34 of IPC, sections 4, 5 and 9 of the M.P.Gow Vansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004 and section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, they pray for bail to the applicants. Learned counsel for the...
Anjini Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 6403/2012 6.8.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, G.A. for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.86/12 registered at Police Station Gadh, Rewa for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B/34 of IPC and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. Annu died after seven years of her marriage. In support of his contention, he filed a progress report of deceased Annu wherein the date of birth is written as 10.7.2005 and Annu is said to have been died unnatural death on 30.4.2012. There is general and omnibus allegation is made against the applicant. The applicant is fatherinlaw of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the applicant fur...
Ramesh Upadhyay @ Boodi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 6442/2012 6.8.2012 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, G.A. for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.86/12 registered at Police Station Gadh, Rewa for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B/34 of IPC and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. Prosecutrix Prreto Devi had gone with the applicant and his co accused on her own accord. She lived with the applicant for about three months. Thereafter, she returned back to her parental house and lodged a false and concocted report against the applicant on instigation of her parents. There is no allegation in regard to committing the rape on her by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further s...
Munnalal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10746/2012 06.08.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondents. They are heard. During the couRs.of arguments, it has been put- forth by Shri Khare, learned counsel for petitioners that matter can be remanded to the Collector to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioneRs.The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide order dated 29.12.1976 passed by the-then Tehsildar Tikamgarh land was allotted in the name of petitioners and they are government lessee. However, in pursuant to the aforesaid order, the name of petitioners could not be mutated in the revenue record, although throughout the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute. Thereafter matter was taken up by the Collector in suo motu on 26.12.2006 and a decision was taken that land in question be allotted to M.P.Tourism Department of Government of M.P.The contention of learned counsel is that since the petitioners are in ...
M/S Holdwell Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.8021 / 2012 (M/S.Holdwell Components Pvt., LTD.Raipur .versus Union of India & two ors.) 06-08-2012 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel with Shri S. Sohgaura, for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 17-2-2012 and 13-4-2012 passed by the respondent No.3, Chief Engineer (TP).West Central Railway, Jabalpur, whereby a sum of Rs.17,24,428.86 has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner under the Risk & Cost Purchase Clause in accordance with the conditions of tender dated 3-11-2008 and, thereafter a letter has been issued on 13-4-2012 by the Deputy Chief Engineer (TP).West Central Railway, Jabalpur to all the concerned authorities to withhold payments pending recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the said recovery could not h...
Dr. Anant Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
Dr. Anant Kumar Mishra versus State of MP and others W.P.No.11892/2012 06/08/2012 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Avinash Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. On payment of P.F by registered A.D. within one week, issue notice of the writ petition. Notice be made returnable in four weeks. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is posted as a Specialist in District Hospital, Rewa. His wife is also posted in Rewa. However, by the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner has been transferred from District Hospital Rewa to District Hospital Shahdol. It is further submitted that Respondent No.4, who is posted in the scheduled area, has been relieved without handing over the charge to his successor, which is contrary to the transfer policy. It is also submitted that there are vacant posts of Specialis...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.9789/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on advance copy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw the petition and would like to file an appeal under Section 44 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code before the Commissioner against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by S.D.M.Teekamgarh (annexure P/1) which is impugned in the writ petition. This prayer is accepted and this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal before the Commissioner. However, it is made clear that if the appeal is filed on or before 31.10.2012, the same be decided on its own merits without entering into the question of limitation. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (A.K.Shrivastava) Judge rao...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »