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.
Shaifali Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
1 W.P.No.11370/2012 Shaifali Shrivastava versus State of M.P.& ORS.06.08.2012 Heard Shri Ashok Chakraborty learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioner. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to take up proceedings available to her under the CrPC. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to her in law, if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.A.No.825.12 Writ Appeal No.825 of 2012 ( K a n h a i y a L a l C h ou d h a r y Vs . S t a t e o f M . P . a n d f o u r o th e r s ) 06/08/2012 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents/State on advance notice. This Intra Court Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 04- 07-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition No.9148/2012 which in turn was directed against the order dated 01-06- 2012 whereby the appellant/petitioner was transferred from Rewa to Singrauli has been disposed of with a direction that the representation preferred by the petitioner against the impugned transfer order shall be decided within a period of four weeks. Grievance of the appellant/petitioner is that having been transferred within a period of two years and six months the transfer ought to h...
Ajam Beg Vs. Javed Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.11209/2012 (Azam Beg versus Javed Khan & Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2012, passed by the Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Sehore in election petition No.03/11, filed by the respondent No.1 against the election of the petitioner as member of Municipal Council, Sehore. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had not filed the application in person, which is a mandatory requirement of the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P.Municipalities Act read with M.P.Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 1962. It is also submitted that the petitioner, in the election petition, has assailed his caste certificate, which is not permissible in accordance with law but the Election Tribunal, without properly construing and considering the objections filed by the petiti...
Mahila Bahu Udeoshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Samnapur Vs. the State o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10876/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Gopi Chourasiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. They are heard. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fate of this case may be decided in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8541/2012 (Mahila Bahu- Uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 29.06.2012 which is based upon the Division Bench decision of Gwalior Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.52/2012 (Shaktipunj Anusuchit Jati Mahila Bauddesiya Sahakari Sansthan versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 02.02.2012. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on other Single Bench decisions of this Court at Gwalior Bench at also at Jabalpur. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and this petition is disposed of by giving direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sagar (respondent no.4) to consider the case of the petitioner in terms...
Smt. Kaushilya Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 5695/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.137/12 registered at Police Station Bijuri, Anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections 181, 197, 198, 200, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal record. Coaccused Dipak Tripathi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.6.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5088/2012. Applicant No.1 is a Sarpanch, applicant No. 2 is the person, who identified the coaccused and applicants No. 3 and 4 are the persons, who witnesse...
Devendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
CR.R.No.1348.12 06.08.2012 Shri R.P.Prajapati, Advocate, for applicants. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Adv.for respondent/State. Though records were called vide order dated 23.7.2012 but not received. Heard on I.A.No.15002/12 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to applicants . Applicants have been convicted u/s 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to S.I.for two years each with fine of Rs.500/- each -vide judgment and finding dated 28.06.2010 in Criminal Case no.871/07 by J.M.F.C Rehali Dist Sagar ; in Cri. appeal No.296/10 vide judgment dated 10.7.12 of Additional Sessions Judge Rehali Dist Sagar has dismissed the appeal by maintaining conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fine amount has been deposited by applicants. 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/applicants Devendr...
Latif Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
CR.R.No.756.11 06.08.2012 Shri Rahul Gupta , Advocate, for applicant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, PL. for respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.25256/11 an application for permanent exemption of the applicant from personal appearance. Looking to the averments made in the application I.A.No.25256/11 is allowed. Applicant is exempted from appearance before the registry instead not he will appear before JMFC Sehore on 27.8.2012 and on such other dates as he be directed by that court . It is directed that certified copy of the order sheet of fiRs.appearance of applicant before the JMFC Sehore on 27.8.2012 be filed before this Court within a week of applicant's appearance. List for final hearing in due course. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Nerash @ Kalu Barman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6346/2012 6/08/2012 Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 26/02/2012 in connection with Crime No.50/12 registered at P.S.Badwara, District Katni for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324 of IPC read with section 25 (1)-B of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted though the name of this applicant find place in the FIR lodged by Harishchandra with allegation that he caught hold the deceased alongwith other co-accused persons however, Harishchandra and Dinesh have not stated the name of this applicant in their statements recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C which shows the false implication of applicant. Trial would take considerable time to be dis...
Premshankar SaraThe Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.3635 / 2006 (N.T.Francis ..Vs..Cooperative Society & another) 03-08-2012 Ms.Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1. Shri Anup Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has been removed from service by the G.C.F.Industrial Cooperative Society, the respondent No.1, with whom the petitioner was working as a welder. Though notices were issued by this Court but the respondent No.1 had not entered appearance. The respondent No.2 has filed I.A.No.3979/2009 for dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner was admittedly an employee of the cooperative society as stated by him in the petition. In the circumstances, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or his nominee under the provisions of Section 55 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the ...
Abdul Rajjak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.9867/2012 06.08.2012 Dr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate for the respondent/ State on advance copy. They are heard. Though several contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner but this petition can be disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner that against the order of issuance of RRC (annexure P/8) dated 15.5.2012 the petitioner may file appeal under Section 44 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code before the appropriate forum and the appropriate Appellate Authority shall decide the grievance of the petitioner without being influenced by any of the order. If the appeal is filed by 31.10.2012, the same be decided on its own merits without entering into the question of limitation. Till the appeal is decided, the order impugned dated 15.5.2012 (annexure P/8) directing to recover an amount of Rs.47, 13, 960/- from the petitioner shall remain in abeyance. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed...
- ‹ Prev
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- Next ›
- Last »