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.
Pradeep Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri P.C.Paliwal, Advocate for applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Shri Rashid Suhail Siddiqui, Advocate for the objector. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.1034/2011 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There was previous rivalry between the complainant and applicant and a case under section 147, 148, 307/149 of the IPC is pending against the complainant and deceased Rajesh, which was initiated on the report of the applicant. There was political rivalry between the parties since Panchayat elections. The allegation against the applicant is that he was party to the conspiracy of administering the poison through rabri (sweet).which the decea...
R.P. Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012. Ms.Malti Dadariya for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Director in the office of Local Fund Audit, District Shahdol. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and departmental inquiry was conducted into the charge-sheet dated 16.5.2007, and the Enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.3.2009. The report was served on the petitioner on 15.4.2009 alongwith a show- cause notice and the petitioner has submitted his reply and representation to the departmental proceedings on 4.5.2009. Thereafter, the matter is pending before the competent authority and no decision has been taken. In the meanwhile, promotion to the next higher post has been ordered, but due to pendency of the departmental proceedings the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. A two fold prayer made in the writ petition is that the respondents/disciplinary authority be directed to conclude the departmental ...
Gram Panchayat Baghad Dhawaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.7167/2012 (Gram Panchayat Baghad Dhawaiya versus Stat of MP and otheRs.01.08.2012 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard and decided. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the respondent No.2, the Commissioner, (Revenue) Division Rewa in case No.28/Review/2010-11. The learned counsel for the respondent who has infact filed the review before the Commissioner , concedes and admits that there is no provision for filing a review under the provisions of the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision).Rules, 1995. He further states that in view of the admitted position of law, he be permitted to withdraw the review before the Commissioner and assail the impugned original order passed by the Commissioner as well as Collector by taking up appr...
Krishna Kumar Chowksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Criminal Appeal No.50/2011 01.08.2012 Shri Mahendra Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. Shri S. Patel, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5. Heard on admission as well as IA No.211/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.challenging the acquittal of the respondents No.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 45 days. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the judgment, therefore he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the judgment was pronounced on 7.9.2010 and the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment within a week, and therefore it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the judgment. After recei...
Smt. Kiran Saini Vs. Smt. Indrane
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...
Satya Dev Tiwari Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.14112/2010 (Satya Dev Tiwari versus MPEB & ors.) 01.08.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement issued by the respondents. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that by order dated 07.03.12, the petitioner has been reinstated. While the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact of reinstatement of the petitioner, he submits that he has wrongly been denied the arrears of salary for the period, during which he was kept out of service due to the wrong order of compulsory retirement of the respondents and in such circumstances, the respondents be directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner. However, as the aforesaid issue is not required to be gone into by this court in the present petition in view of the order ...
Suresh Chandra Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal for the petitioner. Petitioner seeks counting of the service rendered in the work charged establishment for grant of pensionary benefits. The issue with regard such a claim is already considered and decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Gopi Pillai versus MPEB, Jabalpur and another, 2002 (2) MPLJ 278 Accordingly, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to counting of the service rendered in the work-charged establishment after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Gopi Pillai (supra) and decide it by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ashok Kumar Sonwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 Ashok Kumar Sonwani versus State W.P.No.11647/2012 1/8/2012: Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 4 on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay of about 60 days, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was working as a Panchayat Secretary. Vide order Annexure P/1 dated 12.10.2011 the Collector discharged the petitioner on the allegations of misconduct. It was the case of the petitioner that the action taken by the Collector is illegal as he has been discharged without following the due process of law. He preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. As there was delay of about 60 days in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.1.2012 Annexure P/2 and therefore, petitioner is before this Court. A pe...
Basant Lal Mohnani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P.No.13566 / 2009 (Basantlal Mohnani ...Vs...State of MP & otheRs.01-08-2012 Shri Sanjay Kumar Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 and 8. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25-10-2009 passed by the respondent No.8 under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Admittedly, impugned order has been passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act which is appealable under Section 127 of the Act and, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy as provided in law against the impugned order. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority in accordance with law. It is further observed that looking to the interim order passed by this Court on 23-12-2009, in case the petition files an...
Dhanaiya Vs. Kamata
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A.No.1646/2006 01.08.2012 Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Alok Jain, Advocate has filed I.A.No.7572/2012 to change the counsel. As per the averments made in the application it is apparent that the respondents want to change their counsel and engage Shri Alok Jain, Advocate. Considering the reasons so stated in the application, it is allowed. Shri Alok Jain, Advocate may file his Vakalatnama within a week. Heard on I.A.No.7582/2012, which is an application for deleting the name of appellant No.1 who has died. Considering the reasons so stated in the application, it is allowed. Permission to delete the name of appellant No.1 granted. Needful be done within a week. List this case on 22nd August, 2012 for orders on I.A.No.7883/2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- Next ›
- Last »