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 Heavy Cargo Movers India Private Ltd. Vs. R.K. Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA.No.1064 o1. 8.2012 Shri Sanjay Agarwal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Jain, counsel for the respondent. In the couRs.of the argument on IA No.1832/11 respondent's application under Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC for grant of stay against some findings and the direction of the trial court given in the impugned judgment, in response of some query of the court based on the provision of section 12(6) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act,1961, appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA as not pressed at this stage with liberty to revive this prayer at subsequent stage if it is necessary. Considering his prayer, the IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid. Appellant's counsel is ready and willing to argue on IA No.14023/11 an application under Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC for grant of stay against execution of the impugned decree but respondent's counsel seeks short adjournment to verify the position stated in the affidavit dated 21.7.12 of J...
Bhoopendra Singh Vs. Smt. Shyamkali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A.No.535/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Atunanand Awasthy, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.8594/2012, which is an application seeking amendment in the memo of appeal. Considering the reasons so stated in the application, it is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out within three days. Also heard on I.A.No.5432/2012, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. Issue notice on the said application to the respondents on payment of process-fee within three days. Notices be made returnable within four weeks. Until further ordeRs.status-quo with respect to possession on the suit land, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties. Let record of the two Courts below shall also be requisitioned. C.c.as per rules. (J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ap...
Shyam Lal Nagar Vs. High Court of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR (SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon) WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) No.10570 OF 200.Shyam Lal Nagar Petitioner versus High Court of M. P. and another Respondents Present : ................................................................................................ Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. ............................................................................................... ORDER (1/08/12) Challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 3/08/04 passed by the Distt. Judge, Chhatarpur compulsory retiring the petitioner on public interest and the order Annexure P-1 A dated 29/07/05 passed by the High Court rejecting the appeal filed, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The main ground of challenge in the writ petition is that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for certain acts of misconduct. A departmental enquiry was pending into the charge- ...
Smt. Shakuntala Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
....1 R.P.No.2 o01. 08.2012 Shri Shekhar Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Counsel for the respondents. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 28.7.2010 passed by the Single Bench in M.A.190 of 2001 by which the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. As the Judge has demitted the office, this matter is placed before the Division Bench for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions :- 1. That by order dated 1.8.2001 the Division Bench in M.A.190/2001 had recorded that the question in respect of award of any amount have given above 2.5 lakhs will be considered but the aforesaid aspect has been escaped for consideration by the Single Bench.2. The interest is on higher side as the Single Bench has affirmed the award of interest @15% per month. From the perusal of the order dated 28.7.2010, we find that attention of the Single Judge was not drawn in respect of the order dated 1.8.2001, though i...
Santosh Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 Criminal Revision No.2111/11 01.08.2012. Shri Amit Seth, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for State. Heard on the point of admission. The petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on IA No.24453/11, an application for stay. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per allegation at the most a case under Section 304-A of IPC could be made out, but in any case no case under Section 304 Part II of IPC is made out as petitioner was not having knowledge that deceased would die due to electrocution. Reliance has been placed on a single bench decision of this Court in Hemraj Jain versus State of M.P.2009 (5) MPHT 4 in which it has been held that a rash or negligent act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC, unless it is proved that the offender willfully and with knowledge did the act which resulted in the death of victim, hence, no case under Section 304 Part II IPC was made out. Looking to the circumstances of th...
Rajmani Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 MCC No.822/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for restoration of W.P No.6903/2010 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 04.07.2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid petition stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the applicant was on his leg before an another Bench and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.07.2012 passed in W.P No.6903/2010 is recalled and is directed to be...
Sukhram Vs. Smt. Jyoti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
FA.No.468 o1. 8.2012 Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Rusha, counsel for the respondent No.1. Ku Savita Choudhry, PL for respondent No.2. Heard on IA No.5456/12 appellant's application for extension of time to deposit the amount of cost in compliance of direction of this court vide order dated 3.2.2012 whereby appellant was directed to deposit such sum within two months and subject to that some interim order was passed. The aforesaid IA has been filed on 30.4.2012 in the Registry with the prayer for extension of period of two months which has already been expired on 30.6.2012 and it is apparent fact that no such sum has been deposited by the appellant during such period also. So, in such premises, this IA has become infructuous. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits of this matter, the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that if the amount of cost is deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order dated 3.2.2012 within 15 days...
Gulam Mohammad Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A No.54 o01. 08.2012 Shri D.S.Choudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ashok Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the two courts below were justified to grant the decree for specific performance, in a suit based upon an unregistered agreement executed on 12.8.1997 (Ex.P/1).and filed after more than eight years on 11.10.2005 granting discretionary relief ?.2. Whether the two courts below were justified to refuse to accept the written statement of the legal heirs on record though it was filed along with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC before the lower appellate court along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which was also rejected, however the courts below were justified to decree the suit of specific performance of contract ?.. It is seen from the record that while considering I.A.No.188/09, this C...
Prem Singh Rajput Vs. Kashiram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C. No. 4312/12 1.8.2012 Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K. Mishra, Government Advocate for the State. Shri R.K. Raghuwanshi, counsel for the objector. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Criminal Case No. 447/2011 registered on the complainant case for offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of private complaint. Trial Court has issued bailable warrant against the present applicants. If the applicants appear before the Magistrate, the Magistrate will send them to jail as he has no power to grant bail under Section 406 of IPC. The applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and in the event of arrest they will be sent to jail, then their reputation would be tarni...
Nitendra Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8574/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, P.P.for the respondent/State. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.145/12, registered at police station Navgaon, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no case u/s 353 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. He is a young boy aged about 20 years and permanent resident of District Chhatarpur. In the event of arrest, his reputation as well as career will be spoiled therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for State opposes th...
- ‹ Prev
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- Next ›
- Last »