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.
Gandharva Singh Kaurav Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vaishya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 R.P.No.580/2012 Gandharva Singh Kaurav Shri Rajneesh Vaisya & others 3.8.2012 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for State. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 13.12.2011 by which the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of finally by an order which reads thus:- Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Addl. A.G.for the respondents. In view of the reply filed by the respondents, it appear that the order has been substantially complied with. This contempt petition is disposed of finally with the liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner still feels aggrieved by the compliance made by the respondents, petitioner is free to raise the grievances in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the decision in the matter of petitioner by the respondents vide Annexure R/1 dated 1.7.2011 is not correct and is in gross violation of the law laid down ...
Rafique Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
M.Cr.C.No.5838/2012 03/8/2012 Shri K.L.Prajapati, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is in custody since 3.12.2011 in connection with Crime No.325/2011 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Chhattarpur for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. This is repeat bail application on behalf of the present applicant. His earlier application was dismissed being withdrawn. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young youth of 25 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. At present the case is remanded back by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhattarpur for trial of offence under Section 379 of IPC. not the case is triable by the Court of JMFC and sufficient time will be required for its disposal. Applicant is in custody since 3.12.2011. Under these circumstances, he prays for bail on...
Ramkishor Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
R.P.No.516 / 2012 (Ram Kishore Gupta...Vs...State of MP & otheRs.03-08-2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. As the petitioner has filed this review application for recalling of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19639/2011, dated 1-12-2011, the amendment as sought for by the petitioner by filing I.A.No.8466/2012 is not necessary. The application for amendment is accordingly rejected. Also heard on the question of condonation of delay and admission. Apparently, the subject matter of the petition filed by the petitioner was distinctive and different from W.P.No.14836/2011 and other connected matters which were decided by this Court on 1-12-2011 and this petition was wrongly clubbed with the same and disposed of in view of the orders passed in the aforesaid W.P.No.14836/2011 as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1963...
Rajendra Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.902/12 03.08.2012 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for State. Heard finally at motion stage with the consent of counsel for the parties. An offence under Section 6 of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam,2004, under Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and under Section 66/192 of Motor Vehicle Act was registered by PS-Kotwali Shahdol vide Crime No.276/12 against the petitioneRs.This petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed against the Order dated 11.4.12 passed by learned CJM, Shahdol in Case No.276/12 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.on the ground that 29 calves seized were being transported for slaughtering. Learned counsel for petitioners submits the receipts together with their identity cards and papers of agricultural lands showing that they are farmers and they have purchased the calves which are young and aged about 18-20 months from Garhakota...
Ntpc.Ltd. Employees Provident Fund Trust Vs. Mp.State Industrial Devel ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1 Company Peti.No.12/2005 3.8.2012 Shri Abhijit Bhowmik, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Amit Seth, Counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submits that in view of the compromise arrived between the parties, a copy of which is filed by the respondent alongwith I.A.No.5214/12 (an application for dismissal of the petition in view of the scheme approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs).the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition. Prayer made by Shri Bhowmik is not opposed by Shri Amit Seth, learned cousnel for respondent, it is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn because of the settlement arrived between the parties. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge C....
Narendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
WRIT APPEAL No.828/2012 03.08.2012 Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S.K.Karan, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Karan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, submits that he has not received all the documents filed by the appellant along with the appeal and appellant may be directed to serve them to him, to which Shri Samaiya submits that he will serve the same during the couRs.of the day to respondent No.4. Shri Karan, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, also submits that the order passed under Section 85(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, was confirmed by the Collector but this document was not available with him when the matter was heard and decided by the single Bench. He submits that he may be allowed an opportunity to file copy of such an order in this appeal. The respondent No.4 may do so. As an interim measure, it is dir...
Khajuraho Potteries Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
W.P.No.11180/2012 (Khajuraho Potteries versus State of MP and otheRs.03.08.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2011 whereby the allotment of plots in the industrial area, Chhatarpur has been cancelled and possession thereof has been taken. Apparently, the said order is appealable and infact, on a previous occasion the petitioner had filed an appeal and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings against the impugned order. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within 15 days along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the appeal expeditiously, in accordance with law as well as pass orders on the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner, a...
Nirbhay Singh Vs. Smt. Tarabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
MISC. CIVIL CASE N0.759/2012 03.08.2012 Shri Vinot Kumar Napit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this MCC to Shri V.K.Mishra, who had appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 in F.A.No.43/2005. Be listed for hearing on 22.8.2012. We have perused the record of F.A.No.43/2005, out of which the present proceedings are arising and find that in the aforesaid case there was an order of payment of maintenance amount to the respondent. The petitioner shall apprise this Court in respect of payment of maintenance to the other side and if the maintenance amount has been paid, to satisfy this Court by showing some documentary evidence in payment/deposit of the said amount. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge Judge A.Praj....
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
....1 W.P.No.14765 o03. 08.2012 Shri Abhijeet Bhoumik, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar with Shri Jaideep Singh, Counsel for the State of M.P.In compliance of order dated 20.7.2012 Shri Pawar has shown us a copy of letter dated 1.8.2012 by the Secretary, G.A.D., Bhopal recommending extension of the period of Jha Commission for a period of six months till 8.4.2012. It is submitted that the matter has to be decided in the Cabinet meeting and the meeting is held once in a month so some time may be allowed to the State to file progress in the matter. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and found that the Jha Commission is assigned a task to examine thousands of documents and it is apparently a herculean task which cannot be completed within a period of six months. Earlier the period of Jha Commission was extended minimum for a period of one year so that the Commission could work accordingly for a period of one year but extending the period only for s...
Praveen Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
W.P.No.11015/2012 (P.S.Raghuvanshi versus State of MP and otheRs.03.08.2012 Heard Shri R.L.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is that the Revision No.243/Revision/2011-12 pending before the court of Additional Commissioner, Rewa be directed to be decided at an early date. Shri Bisen, learned G.A.appearing for the State submits that the revision shall be decided, expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's revision, expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- Next ›
- Last »