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.
State Bank of India Vs. M.P.Rajya Pashu.and Kukkut Vk.Nigam Bhop
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.305/08. 1.8.2012. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2, although represented. Heard on IA No.5349/08, appellant's application for grant of stay against execution of impugned money decree. Earlier on admission of this appeal vide order dated 5.5.2008 the following interim order was passed on this IA: as an interim measure subject to deposit of 50% decreetal sum in the trial Court within 30 days, the recovery of remaining sum sum of the impugned decree from the appellants is hereby stayed. Having heard in the available factual scenario aforesaid interim order is hereby made absolute till disposal of this appeal. Accordingly IA is disposed of. However, the trial/ executing Court is directed to deposit the aforesaid deposited sum with some nationalize Bank under some fixed deposit scheme with stipulation of its periodically revival until further order of this Court....
Smt.Meera Bai Pandre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.12142/08 (s) 1/08/12 Shri Hemanshu Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is a widow of a retired Govt. employee and the dispute in this writ petition pertains to settlement of the G.P.F. amount of the petitioner. Petitioner claims payment of the amount of G.P.F. on the basis of the pass-book and the ledger available with the petitioner. Photo-copies of which have been filed as Annexures P-5 and P-6. However, the respondent/Accountant General, M.P.has filed a detailed affidavit along with another pass-book Annexure R-1 and calculation Annexures R-2 and R-3 and has tried to demonstrate before this Court that the entries and documents filed by the petitioner are not correct. The documents Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 are correct based on which the amount is paid and, therefore, nothing remains to be paid. The dispute in question is a disputed question of fact with regard to payment of provident fund and qu...
Brajlal Kushwaha Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(1) Cr.A.No.1770/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1770/2003 APPELLANT : Brajlal Kushwaha, aged about 40 years, S/o Nirbhay Kushwaha, R/o Tendua P.S. Mauganj, District Rewa (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S.Mauganj (M.P.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Ms. Aparna Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Date of hearing :26. 07/2012 Date of judgment:01. 08/2012 (JUDGMENT ) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12.9.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj in Sessions Trial No.133/2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous impr...
Toran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1761/2006 Toran Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri N. K. Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer. ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 1st day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.8.2006 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in ST. No.228/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the table below : Section Act Sentence Fine Sentence, in amount default of payment of fine. 376 I.P.C Seven Rs.1000/- Three months years R.I. simple imprison. 366 I.P.C Three Rs.300/- One months years R.I. simple imprison. 506 ...
M.L. Hirwane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012. Shri K.N.Pethia for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner is working as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Horticulture and Farm Forestry, Bhopal. It is the case of the petitioner that he is at Serial No.1 and eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Director, but due to appointment of respondent No.5 on the said post by bringing him on deputation, right of the petitioner to seek promotion to the post of Joint Director is being frustrated. Interalia contending that as per the Recruitment Rules, the post of Joint Director has to be filled up by promotion and appointment by transfer or deputation is prohibited, this writ petition has been filed. Even though notices have been issued, respondents have not filed any reply, but today during the couRs.of hearing, it is pointed out that respondent No.5 Shri Atul Mishra has been repatriated back to his parent department and, therefore, not the post of Joint Director in the department is lyi...
Kailash Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012: Shri Atul Rai for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL, for the State. Petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed in ...
Sitaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, 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 4.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.164/2012 registered at P.S.Damoh Dehat, District Damoh for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 201/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. As per prosecution, deceased Pankaj was with the applicant till 8 O'clock and next day he was found dead. Nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. Other incriminating evidence has been seized from the possession of co-accused Halle Bhai. The charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would tak...
Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. Vs. Member Judge, Industrial Court
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 W.P.No.4985/09 1/08/12 Shri R.N.Shukla, learned Sr.counsel with Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.C.Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Challenging the orders dated 5/05/09 and 20/03/09 passed by the Industrial Court and the Labour Court respectively rejecting certain preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/establishment, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent Shri Hamidulla Khan was working in the petitioner's establishment and it is stated that he has submitted his resignation and a sum of Rs.1,38,978/- towards full and final settlement was paid to him. However, after a period of two yeaRs.it is said that he challenged his resignation and claimed a compensation of Rs.4,03,200/-. When this application was filed under the provisions of M.P.Industrial Relations Act, petitioner raised a preliminary objection on the basis of certain judgments of the Supreme Court and submitted that if Shri Hamidulla Khan wants to challenge the acceptance of ...
Surendra Sanghvi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
WRIT APPEAL NO.860/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case that without issuing any show cause notice or extending an opportunity of hearing the allotment in favour of the appellant has been cancelled by the respondent No.1 and because of this, proceeding has been initiated by the respondent No.2 for eviction of the appellant, we find it appropriate to direct Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General to seek instructions in the matter. Be listed for hearing on 13.8.2012. Till next date of hearing, status-quo as it exists today, in respect of the appellant's possession, be maintained by the respondents. Certified copy as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge A.Praj....
Parmanand Raghuwanshi Vs. Smt. Shyamabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
MCC No.711 o1. 01.08.2012 Shri K.K.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate for the non-applicants. Seeking restoration of S.A.No.1047/97 which has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide order dated 1.5.2012, the applicant has filed this restoration application. Considering the reasons as stated in the application which is supported by the affidavit of the counsel, with a view to do substantial justice, restoration application is hereby allowed subject to depositing cost of Rs.500/- by the applicant with the High Court Legal Services Committee. On furnishing the receipt of cost deposited by the applicant, S.A.No.1047/97 shall stand restored to its original number. Let a copy of this order be Kept along with the record of S.A.No.1047/97. After restoration, Second Appeal No.1047/97 be listed for final hearing in the month of September, 2012. (J.K.Maheshwari) JUDGE DV...
- ‹ Prev
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- Next ›
- Last »