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 Gurunanak Timber Mart Vs. Anil Kumar Gulatee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA.No.265 o1. 8.2012 Shri R.K.Sanghi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Abhishek Gulati, counsel for the respondents. In the couRs.of argument on IA No.8427/12 an application for necessary direction under section 151 of the CPC permitting him to withdraw his right of claiming stay of execution of the decree for eviction with further prayer to give him the right of restitution under section 144 of the CPC subject to decision of this appeal, in view of the order dated 14.5.2012 passed by the co-ordinate bench, on making certain query from the appellant's counsel, on which, instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw the aforesaid IA with liberty to file the fresh application, after vacating the disputed premises and handing over the possession of the same to the respondents, to extend him a liberty to file the appropriate proceedings under section 144 of the CPC subject to decision of this appeal, on arising the occasion. On consideration, the aforesaid IA is dismissed as wit...
Om Prakash Dhangar Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.A.No.325/2010 Om Prakash Dhangar & others State of M.P.& others 1.8.2012 Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Manot Sahu, Counsel for appellants in W.A.No.325/10 & for petitioners in W.P.No.4237/10. Shri Girish Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.10689/10. Shri A.D.Mishra, Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.10815/10. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for State. Shri Jaideep Singh informs that on 28.7.2012, the Collector, Jabalpur has constituted two teams of Government officials for the survey and prays for sometime for compliance of the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in this appeal. From the perusal of the order-sheets, we find that on 16.5.2012, we had asked the respondents to apprise this Court in respect of the steps taken by the officials for conferral of Bhoomiswami rights to the appellants and other similarly situated persons who are in possession of land from 1959. It appears that no steps were taken upto 6.7.2012 and one last opportunity was allowed and thereafter...
Shailendra Singh Vs. Radheshyam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA No.335/12. 1.8.2012 Shri Shobit Adtiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2. Ku. Savita Choudhary, learned P.L.for the State-respondent no.3. Heard on I.A.No.8449/12, appellants application under Section 149 of the CPC permitting him to deposit the deficit Court fee at belated stage and also for condoning the delay in submitting the same. For the reasons stated in it, the I.A.is allowed and the annexed Court fees is taken on record and if there is any delay, the same is hereby condoned. At the request of appellants counsel he is heard on the question of admission. Admit. Respondents counsel have taken notice of this admission hence, no further notice is required. Appellants counsel is directed to supply them the copy of the appeal memo along with annexed papers within three days enabling them to defend this appeal. Let the record of the trial Court be also requisitioned positively within 30 days. Also heard on I.A.No.363...
Haji Sharif Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.6290/2012 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 31/05/2012. 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 31/05/12 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...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Ramkumari Bharadwaj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.A.No.151/2012 State of M.P.& others Smt.Ramkumari Bharadwaj 1.8.2012 Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for appellants. Shri Vivek Rusia, counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.2.2011 in W.P.No.3413/2005, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent against the order dated 9.3.2005, by which her promotion order was cancelled was allowed and the order dated 9.3.2005 was quashed on the ground that such an order was passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. This order is under challenge in this petition. This appeal is also barred by 290 days, for which the appellants have moved another application I.A.No.1349/2012 seeking condonation of delay. Facts of the case are that the respondent was earlier working as L.D.C., in the Land Records Department at Jabalpur. There she was promoted on 20.12.1985 as U.D.C., and thereafter she was transferred to Revenue Department and was posted at Katni. On 19.5.2004 she was promoted as As...
The State of M.P. Vs. Girjesh Sharma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1566 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Girjesh Sharma & others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Shri S.K.Dixit, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 1st day of August, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.3.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.285/1995 by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506-B, 448, 324 and 323 of IPC.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.4.1995 at about 11:00 PM in the night the complainant Satyanarayan Pandey was coming back from the house of Constable Parmeshwardeen, who was residing in the ...
Biharilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8200/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.258/11, registered at police station Chhapara, District Seoni for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. The eye witness Chainwati Bai, w/o Ramprasad has stated that deceased Hiralal went with Baio Bai, Dhirendra and other 7-8 persons. In these circumstances, except applicant no.3 Dhirendra names of other applicants Biharilal, Sahablal and Pappu do not find place in her statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.Applicants...
Hitkarni College of Engineering and Technology Hitkarni Hills Dumna Ro ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
WRIT PETITION NO.12201/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.2. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this petition to the standing counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 Shri Pradeep Sharma, during the couRs.of the day against acknowledgment, who shall seek instructions from respondents No.1 and 2. Be listed for hearing on 3.8.2012. On the prayer of ad-interim writ, on being asked by us, Shri P.K.Kaurva, learned Dy. Advocate General sought instructions from respondent No.3 and reported that so far as B.E.CouRs.is concerned though at the instant of the petitioner, the students were permitted to opt the institution of the petitioner No.1, but because of non- furnishing recognition from the respondents No.1 & 2 till 31.7.2012, the petitioner No.1 College has not been allotted any student for B.E.CouRs.inspite of the fact that some of the students had opted the petitioner No.1 College. S...
Smt. Neeta Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8753/2012 1.08.2012 Shri M. Choubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, G.A.for the respondent/State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.385/2012 registered at Police Station Adhartaal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 498-A of IPC and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is a Lower Division Clerk in the Tehsil Office, Jabalpur. It is further submitted that as per the impugned order, the main allegation of committing the cruelty on complainant Rashmi is against her husband Nitesh @ Nikki. It is a matrimonial case and in the event of her arrest, the possibility of compromise would be diminished, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. Considering the over all facts and c...
Mohd. Sabbir Vs. Parasram Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA.No.496 o1. 8.2012 Shri Sanjay Agarwal, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Choubey, counsel for the respondent No.1. Ku Savita Choudhry, PL for respondent No.2. In view of listing the matter for consideration of the IA No.8481/12, IA No.8480/12 an application for urgent hearing of such IA, does not require further consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. IA No.8482/12 appellant's application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint with respect of the facts which have come into existence in pendency of this appeal, shall be considered at appropriate stage of this appeal or in any case at the time of final hearing of this appeal, hence the hearing of such IA is deferred. In response of some query of the court, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.8481/12 an application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property as defendant in the plaint with liberty to press IA No.8479/12 filed un...
- ‹ Prev
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- Next ›
- Last »