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.
Ganna Bai Vs. Sukhnand Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA.No.318 o1. 8.2012 Shri Satish Singh counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Ku Savita Choudhary, PL, counsel for respondent No.3. Instead to argue the matter, appellants counsel seeks short adjournment saying that the copy of the reply of IA No.3466/12 filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 has been supplied to him only today and he wants to go through the same before making his submission on the IA. Considering his prayer, the case is adjourned. Let it be placed under the same head in the next week. The interim order passed earlier is hereby continued till next hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...
Mohd. Raqib Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6920/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 28/06/12. It is further submitted that nothing is reported against him as to the fact that he is not co-operating in further investigation and misused the liberty granted to him therefore, he prays for confirmation of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the State has formal objection. Since applicant has already been released on ad- interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that he misused the liberty granted to him, the order dated 28/06/12 is hereby made absolute till the final disposal of criminal case arises out of the crime No.19/12. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.SOLANKI) Judge navin...
Governing Body, St. Aloysius College, Vs. Principal Secretary the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.A.No.604 o1. 8.2012. None for the appellant. Shri R.K.Verma for the respondent. Shri Verma raised a preliminary objection that against an order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case, by which a prayer was made to recall order dt.6.6.2006 in W.P.No.253 of 1995 was rejected, this appeal is not maintainable. It is submitted that u/s 2 of the M.P.Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, a writ appeal lies against an order passed by the single Bench exercising original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,but, not against an order by which review petition was dismissed. As none is appearing for the appellant, we dismiss this appeal in default with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge Khan*...
Pappu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri Anoop Saxena, 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 25.3.2012 in connection with Crime No.131/2012 registered at P.S.Civil Line, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is husband of deceased Ramkunwar. She committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance (hair-dye).The applicant had taken her to the hospital, where she died. In the statement of Ramkunwar recorded by the Police Officer, she stated that applicant scolded and abused her, therefore, she consumed the hair-dye in the fit of anger. Counsel has submitted that the it may be a cause of death but same cannot be termed as abetment to commit suicide. Challan has already been filed. The applicant is in cust...
Lukki Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri Pradeep Naveria, 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 13.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.29/2012 registered at P.S.Kumhari, District Damoh for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix was a consenting party. She is a major lady. Challan has already 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 contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is a...
Rohit Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012 Shri L.N.Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.561/2012 registered at Police Station T.T.Nagar, Bhopal for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged that 62 bulk liters illicit country made liquor is said to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 31.5.12. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case along with the contention raised on behalf of the parties, without expressing any opinion ...
Smt. Meera Devi Namdeo Vs. Prabhat Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A.No.1224/2010 01.08.2012 Shri Manot Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.9651/2011, I.A.No.8182/2012, I.A.No.8183/2012, which are the applications under Order 22 Rule 3, Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that sole appellant has died, however, his LRs may be taken on record by condoning the delay of two days in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC. Considering the reasons so stated in the application seeking condonation of delay and application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.8183/2012 and I.A.No.8182/2012 are allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.9651/2011 is also allowed. Let substitution be made within a week. List this case for admission on 16/8/2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ts...
Bhagwandeen Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.9298/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.193/12 registered at Police Station Nourajabad for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged that 165 bulk liters illicit country made liquor is said to have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 19.7.12. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case along with the contention raised on behalf of the parties, without expr...
Ram Gopal Singh Vs. Veerbhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.82/07. 1.8.2012. Sole appellant is reportedly dead. None for the legal representatives of sole appellant stated in IA No.4630/12, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC to substitute the name of legal representatives of deceased appellant on record. None for the respondent No.1 and 3 to 6, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel. Notice issued to respondent No.2 and 7 are received back with an endorsement that they have refused to take the same. In such premises it is held that inspite service of notice they have not appeared before the Court, consequently the appeal is directed to be proceed ex-party against them. Having perused the aforesaid IA No.4630/12, an application to substitute the name of proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant on record. The same has been filed within prescribed limitation and the applicant appears to be natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Hence, by allowing the IA the pro...
Gram Panchayat, Karaila Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.11710/2012 (Gram Panchayat Karaila versus State of MP and otheRs.01.08.2012 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Collector/ District Magistrate, Singrouli pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.16209/2011 dated 26.09.2011, whereby the dispute between certain villagers and respondent No.4, who has been granted licence under the relevant provisions of law to establish a magazine, was directed to be decided taking into consideration previous reports of the S.D.M.as well as the previous orders of the Collector and if necessary to take action against those who were interfering in and obstructing the authorities in implementing the law. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the District Magistrate has made all efforts to get the matter amicably resolved but the petitioner led by Arvind Ku...
- ‹ Prev
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- Next ›
- Last »