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.
M/S Rama Construction Company Rewa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
W.P.No.10461/2012 (M/s Rama Construction versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 03.08.2012 Shri Atul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.s.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the authorities to pay their bills regularly without insisting upon a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mining Department. It is stated that the controveRs.involved in the present petition is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the cases of M/s Narsingh Construction Company versus State of M.P.& Ors., W.P No.4658/2012 decided on 13.4.2012 and M/s Chandrama Construction Company versus M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh & OtheRs.W.P No.1361/2009. The aforesaid aspects are not disputed by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in similar terms as passed by thi...
The Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation Vs. the Chairman-cum-managin ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
WA No.839 o3. 8.2012. Shri L.M.Tripathi for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dt.27.6.2012 passed in W.P.No.8894/12 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant on 18.6.2012 challenging the notice Annexure-P/20 dt.5.9.2003 was dismissed on the ground of latches. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince this Court that in fact there was no amalgamation of the union and in this regard he has drawn our attention to Annexure-P/10, 11 and 12 filed along with this appeal, but, could not dispute this fact that Annexure-P/20 dated 5.9.2003 was served long back on the petitioner. As per the statement made before this Court, it was served in 2005. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that since 2005, appellant was continuously in the process of correspondence with the respondents and only in 2011 he could get copy of the orders of amalgamation, Annexure-P/10, 11 and 12 and thereafter the writ petition was filed, but, we are not convinced with ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Saxena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
W.A.No.846/2012 03.08.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for appellants. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.1.2012, passed by Single Bench in W.P.No.6850/2012(S).by which the learned Single Judge directed appellants herein to ensure walking test of the respondent again, and if he is found fit, then to process his matter in accordance with law. This appeal is also barred by 137 days. So, the appellants have filed another I.A.No.9381/2012, seeking condonation of delay. We have examined the order passed by the Single Bench and the record produced before us. The facts of the case are that the respondent Sanjay Kumar Saxena was a daily wager employee under the appellants. An advertisement dated 20.8.2008 was issued for recruitment of daily wager employees on the post of Forest Guard in the Forest Department. The respondent had cleared written examination and thereafter he was subjected to physical test in which he was declared fit. However, as per the appell...
Ramsahay Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 Ramsahay Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Passed on 3rd day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.32/94, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for ...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Snehlata
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
....1 F.A.No.707 o03. 08.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, Counsel for the appelant. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, we direct the appellant to remain personally present before this Court. We also direct the respondent to appear before this Court so that the matter can be sorted out by making efforts for reconciliation because it has come on record that at the time of filing of the suit, the appellant and respondent who happens to be Advocates were residing jointly but during the pendency of this suit the respondent has shifted to Bhopal. Issue notice to the respondent to cause personal appearance before this Court on the next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 5.9.2012. P.F.be paid within a week by Reregisterd AD mode. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge Judge vj...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
M.C.C.No.1971/2005 3.8.2012 Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri J.Prasad, counsel for respondent no.2. This petition is filed seeking review of order dated 22.8.2005 passed in W.P.No.829/2005, by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner assailing order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that on the basis of some new material produced in this review petition, the order dated 22.8.2005 may be reviewed. From the perusal of record, it appears that it is a mutation matter and the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Tahsildar for deciding the mutation case, after hearing both the parties. As the matter is still pending before the Tahsildar, parties can agitate their contention before the Tahsildar, who would consider the case of the parties. Merely some new document has been filed in this case will not be ...
Chirkut and anr Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1617 OF 199.Chirkut & another. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anil Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 3rd day of August, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24/11/1995 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No.163/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 29.3.1994 the victim Roshan (PW-1) was going to answer the call of nature while at Village Rajna (Police ...
Raja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.643/12 03.08.2012 Shri M.A.Khan, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for State. Heard on IA No.8082/12, an application for taking documents on record. Since the documents (challan papeRs.may be helpful in deciding this petition, hence, application (IA 8082/12) is allowed. Documents are taken on record. Also heard on IA No.7208/12, an application for stay. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no prima facie evidence and nexus to link the petitioner with the crime. The only allegation is that the alleged vehicle which was looted by committing murder with dacoity was found in the premises said to be of the petitioner and that was kept by co-accused Gulam Ansari who has narrated that other accused persons approached him with the vehicle and confessed that they looted the vehicle by committing murder of driver Sheikh Sanawar. Counsel submits that there is only memorandum of co-accused Gulam that vehicle was kept in the premises. He submits ...
M/S Nandan Agro and Forest Products Pvt.Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
I.T.A.No.107/2012 03.08.2012 Shri A.P.Shrivastava with Shri Sapan Usrethe, learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Tribunal erred in not deciding the question in respect of validity of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act merely referring in para 11 that no arguments were advanced on the point while the appellant had not only raised this ground in memo of appeal but also raised this ground in the written submission, compilation of judgment etc.?.. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the appellant to serve memo of appeal, documents and this substantial question of law as framed today, to Shri Lal within one week against acknowledgment. Be listed for hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge Judge Skc...
National Council for Teacher Education Vs. Seva Sadan Shiksha Mahavidy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
....1 R.P.No.521 o03. 08.2012 Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Bramhdatt Singh, Counsel for the respondents. This review petition is directed seeking review of order dated 25.4.2012 in W.P.No.7232 of 2010 which was finally disposed of by this Court in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in National Council for Teachers Education and another versus Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management reported in [(2012) 5 SCC 139].and directed for inspection of the institute by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought review of the order mainly on the ground that the inspection has already been carried out so there is no necessity for carrying fresh inspection. The controveRs.has been considered and decided by the Apex Court in Vaishnav Institute of Technology and the case has been decided following the law laid down by the Apex Court so no case is made out for entertaining this review petition. It is accordingly dismissed w...
- ‹ Prev
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- Next ›
- Last »