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. Smt.Tasneem Hussain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 FIRs.APPEAL No.908/2005. 1.8.2012. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.8122/12, respondent's application for appropriate direction to the appellant to deposit the interest in accordance with the decree with the executing Court. The appellant's counsel submits that appellant has deposited the decreetal some along with the interest with the executing Court in compliance of the earlier direction of this Court. The same is apparent from the order sheet dated 30.11.2010 drawn up by the trial Court in the execution proceeding. In view of aforesaid submission, IA No.8122/12, does not require any further consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to revive this prayer if on verification it is found that aforesaid sum and interest has not been deposited by the appellant with the executing Court. It being an admitted appeal, office is directed ...
Kanti Devi Vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
S.A.No.204/2012 01.08.2012 Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri K.S.Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : i) Whether in view of demarcation/identity dispute between the parties i.e.whether the suit land forms part of KhaSr.No.105/15 and 105/08 owned by plaintiff or forms part of KhaSr.No.105/5 owned by defendant No.1, it was incumbent upon the Courts below to have appointed a local Commissioner as envisaged under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for demarcation of the suit land and submission of spot inspection report ?. ii) Whether in view of admission of defendant No.1 in paragraph 10 of his statement that he has no objection to plaintiff's claim being decreed as per the boundaries mentioned in her sale deeds, the plaintiff's claim ought to have been so decreed without being influenced by any other irrelevant considerations ?. Issue...
Rajjak Musalman Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.7106/2012 01/08/2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, P.P.for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 16/04/12 in connection with Crime No.5/12 registered at P.S.Kishangarh, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(G) and 506- II of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that applicant was not having the common intention to commit rape of prosecutrix. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. I have perused the case diary alongwith the FIR wherein it is alleged that applicant alongwith other Co.accused Manot has kidnapped the pr...
Raghunath Singh Patel Vs. Chandra Pal Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
MCrC No.7489/2012. 1.8.2012. Shri Premendra Sen, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing of the order-dated 22.5.2012 passed by Shri R.S.Kanojia, JMFC, Narsinghpur, rejecting respondents application, under Section 257 of the Code, for withdrawal of his complaint, whereupon cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was taken against the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order-dated 22.5.2012 would reveal that the prayer for withdrawal was rejected for the reason that the petitioner had failed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. AIR 201.SC 1907. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision has no application to the prayer for withdrawal. However, fact of the matter is that the g...
Bablu Singh Urf Bhuwaneshwar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
M.Cr.C.No.3350/2012 1.8.2012 Shri N.B.Gurung, counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. This is the sixth application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Previous applicants were dismissed on merits. The application of co-accused is also dismissed. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.161/2003 registered at P.S.Dhanpuri, Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 14/3/2005. He has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. I have perused the statement of Ramprakash wherein he specifically stated that the present applicant was on the spot alongwith the other Co.accused persons. During the incident, co-accused Shankar Singh has opened the fire thereby deceased sustained the...
Harish Chandra Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1 Harish Chandra Yadav versus State W.P.No.11421/2012 1/8/2012: Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 8.8.2007 and on 2.2.2008 vide Annexure P/2 the powers of Panchayat Secretary was conferred upon him by the Collector, Mandla. In the meanwhile, due to involvement of the petitioner in a Criminal case powers of Secretary was taken away from the petitioner. However, not petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges in view of order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.854/2003 and after acquittal in a criminal case, petitioner filed application seeking restoration of charge but as nothing has been done, petitioner is before this Court. Considering the fact that the matter is pending before the Collector, Mandla, and it is the said authority who has to take a decision due to subsequent development, for the present, without entering into...
Babu Vs. Khilla (D) Smt. Parmi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
F.A.No.36/2011 01.08.2012 Ku. Vandana Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 (i)-Smt. Parmi is reportedly dead. Shri J.L.Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (ii).None for respondent No.1 (iii) to (vi).2 and 3, although served. Ku. Savita Choudhary, learned PL for respondent no.4. Heard on IA No.1250/12, an application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the CPC for deleting the name of respondent No.1 (i) Smt. Parmi. As per averments of this IA, the legal representatives of deceased - respondent are already on record as respondent No.1 (iii) to (vi).Thus, there is no necessity to take any steps in this regard. In the aforesaid premises, by allowing the IA, the appellant's counsel is permitted to delete the name of respondent no.1 (i) from the array of appeal memo. Such exercise be carried out within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Dhanwati Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
1.8.2012 Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.14769/2012, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.127/2012 registered at P.S.Lakhnadon, District Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant No.1 is Sarpanch of village Sirolipar and applicant No.2 is Assistant Engineer at Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon. Complainant Shivram filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Lakhnadon under sections 420, 467, 468, 431, 409/34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate directly sent the same under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.for registration to the police and the police has registered the aforesaid offence against the applicants. The complai...
Ramesh Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
W.P. No. 11659/2012 (S) 1.8.2012 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 13.7.2012 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby, the petitioner, Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Scheme has been transferred from Circle Baldeogarh, district Tikamgarh to Circle Rajnagar No. 1, district Chhatarpur. As apparent therefrom that, the petitioner is being tranferred along with other 49 similarly placed Supervisors and the transfer is in administrative exigency. The petitioner challenges the transfer on the ground that being holder of a District Cadre post, the petitioner ought not to have been transferred from one district to another as the same will adversely affect his seniority. Secondly, it is urged that, the petitioner's wife is suffering from chronic ailment wherefor she has to undergo continuous treatment at Indore, the transfer, it ...
Smt. Maya Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
01.08.2012. Shri Subodh Kathar for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner was working as Anganwadi Karyakarta. On the ground that one Prem Narayan has submitted a complaint with regard to distribution of NSC, under the Ladli Laxmi Yojana, and in the distribution of the amount, petitioner has committed irregularity, services of the petitioner has been terminated by the impugned order Annexure P/2. Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the complaint received from Prem Nayaran on 2.1.2012, an inquiry was conducted by the Project Officer on 3.1.2012 behind the back of the petitioner and a report submitted and based on the report, action is taken against the petitioner without notice to her, without hearing the petitioner and as the action is taken on allegations of mis-conduct committed by the petitioner in the distribution of the amount under the Ladli Laxmi Yojana, it is stated that the order is stigmatic in nature an...
- ‹ Prev
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 150
- Next ›
- Last »