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.
Mukesh @ Mukki Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10478/2012 06.08.2012 Shri G.S.Baghel, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate for respondents on advance copy. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure- P/2) passed by respondent No.3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 22.11.2008 the District Magistrate Katni passed an order of externment against the petitioner under the M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for a period of one year from the date of order i.e.22.11.2008 to 21.11.2009. Against the said order an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner, who vide order dated 19.06.2009 set aside the order of District Magistrate and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate. Thereafter, on 17.10.2011 matter was again taken into account and not the District Magistrate has passed an order of ex...
Har Prasad Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
6.8.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.15193/2012, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.205/2012 registered at P.S.Begumganj, District Raisen, for the offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The incident took place outside the house, therefore, no case is made out under section 452 of the IPC against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the consi...
Dr. Sumer Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.11340/2012 06.08.2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent no.2 to 4 to release the compensation of petitioner against 425 Mahua Trees as per the official rates provided in the rule and also the penal rate of interest, i.e.12% p.a.from the date of vesting of land till payment is made; (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lac for inordinate delay in payment of compensation; (iii) To call for the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; (iv) Any other reliefs deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is curious to note that despite the land in question was declared surplus and the possession was obtained by the S...
Aniruddh Kumar Kaurav Vs. the Commissioner and Registrar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
Aniruddh Kumar Kaurav. versus State of MP and others W.P.No.9265/2011 06/08/2012 Shri Anuwad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 prays for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is out of station. The aforesaid submission is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a patient of Cancer and is to retire within a period of six months. The matter pertains to medical bills of the petitioner which are to be paid to him towards the expenses incurred by him on account of treatment. However, by way of last indulgence, as prayed for by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at motion hearing on 14 th of August, 2012. (Alok Aradhe) Judge nd...
Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.12107/2012 (Ajay Kumar Swivedi versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 06.08.2012 Heard Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The only prayer sought by the petitioner in the present petition is for a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide Section 40 proceedings initiated under the provisions of the M.P.Panchayati Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, pending before him against respondent nos.3 & 4 as the same have been kept pending since 11.3.2011 and no orders thereon have been passed till date. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, on advance copy, submits that the proceedings shall be decided as early as possible in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner produces a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition W.P.No.12107/2012 (Ajay Kumar Swivedi...
Mukesh Puri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
6.8.2012 Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 8.6.2012 in connection with Crime No.122/2012 registered at P.S.Mandhata, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under sections 366, 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix is about 19 years of age. She had gone with the applicant on her own accord. They travelled many places, but she did not make any report, thereafter, after returning back to her parental house, she lodged false and concocted report against the applicant. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contenti...
Karuna Sagar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.7968 / 2012 (Karuna Sagar Mishra .versus State of M.P.& another) 06-08-2012 Shri Arvind Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming award of bonus marks in the Patwari Selection Examination, 2012 on account of the fact that he has received an award from the President for the work done by him under the Scouts & Guides Scheme. On a query being made it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner has no statutory basis as there is no provision under any Act or the Rules which provides for giving bonus marks for being a President's awardee. In the circumstances, as the claim of the petitioner has no statutory or legal basis, the petition filed by the petitioner accordingly stands dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct...
Sahid 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...
Ambika Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
W.P.No.10243/2012 06.08.2012 Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for the respondent no.5. They are heard. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 19.06.2012 (annexure P/12) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.1261-Two/11. On bare perusal of the impugned order, it is gathered that an application under Section 178 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code for partition of the holdings was filed by respondent no.5 which was allowed on the basis of the compromise against which respondent no.5 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was barred by time although the order of Tahsildar was in favour of the respondent no.5. The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and that order was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner in the Second Appeal. A revision application was filed by the respondent no.5 before the Boar...
Ram Bharose Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1260 OF 200.Ram Bharose. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Manju Khatri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 6th day of August, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/2/2008 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No.220/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo six months' RI in addition.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 3.8.2006 the v...
- ‹ Prev
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- Next ›
- Last »