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.
Ms.Mamta Choubey and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 of 1997 Ms. Mamta Choubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ........................................................................................................... For the appellant : Shri Rajneesh Jain, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor ........................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of August, 2012) The appellant no.1 has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.2.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.119/1996 whereby the appellant no.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be mentioned as the Special Act.) and sentenced for six months simple imprisonment with fine...
Smt. Malti Dumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Smt. Malti Dumar & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13450 28. 8.2012: Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by the petitioners that though they are working for more than 15 years as daily wagers and have fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the one time scheme made by the State Government, yet their cases are not considered for regularization. It is contended that screening committee has not yet been constituted and because of the said reasons, the delay has been caused. Time and again instructions have been issued by the State Government but nothing has been done, therefore, they are constrained to file this writ petition. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the circular of the State Government issued on 18.6.2010 wherein it is directed that for the Class-III and Class-IV posts, no sanction from the competent authority is requir...
Mukeem @ Ahsan Khan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr.R. No.1263/2001 Mukeem @ Ahsan Khan Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri P.S. Das, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. Order reserved on :23. 8.2012 Order passed on :28. 8.2012 ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 3.12.2001 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Cr. A. No.130/2001 arising out of judgment dated 13.8.2001 passed by the JMFC, Seoni in Criminal Case No.339/2001.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that on 30.10.1993 at about 2 pm when the applicant was going towards Sadak Seoni along with some labourers in truck not MPT 9823.due to rash and negligent driving of the applicant the truck turned turtle and the labourers sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. The FIR (P-20) was lodged at P.S.Seoni. Charge sheet was file...
Jeepu @ Jibriel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Cr. Appeal No.2444/11 28.8.2012 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.15102/12, appellants repeat application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 12.1.2012. Appellant has been convicted under Sections 366, 376(1).506 and 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for RI five years with fine of Rs.2000/- in the fiRs.count, RI for ten years with fine of Rs.2000/- in the second count while, RI one year with fine of Rs.500/- separately in the third and fourth count with a direction to run the awarded jail sentences concurrently. Appellants counsel by referring the deposition of the prosecutrix Ku. Mamta (PW-1) said that in view of various inconsistencies at every stage in her deposition, the same could not have been the foundation for holding the co...
M.P. Bijli Karmachari Congress Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.1979/2010 28.08.2012 Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the intervenor. I.A.No.10229/2012, an application for amendment in the cause title of writ petition is considered and allowed. Let amendment be incorporated within seven days. Notice of the writ petition on behalf of newly added respondent No.1 is accepted by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate. An amended copy of the writ petition together with annexures be served on learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the newly added respondent No.1, who will seek instructions and will file his response within four weeks. List thereafter for consideration along with other analogous matteRs.(K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Smt. Jyoti Chaudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 W.P.No.14236/2012 Smt. Jyoti Chaudhary versus State of M.P.& ORS.28.08.2012 Heard Smt. Shimla Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of a direction to the respondents to produce Master Raghav Chaudhary before this Court as it is alleged that he has been taken away by the petitioner's husband and her father-in-law. As per the allegation of the petitioner herself, the child has been taken away by his father and in such circumstances the appropriate remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to file an application under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to take up separate proceedings for custody or for periodic visiting rights and a writ of habeas corpus in such circumstances cannot be issued against the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid. With the aforesaid liberty, the pet...
Sudhir Chandra Datt Vs. the Union of India and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1....M.C.C.No.5 o28. 08.2012 None for the petitioner. Sarvashri P.K.Kaurav, Dy. A.G.and Anoop Nair prays for short time to apprise this Court in respect of the present status. Prayer is allowed. On the next date of hearing State shall also apprise this Court in respect of the maintenance of the road connecting township of Jabalpur to Dumna Airport and provide street light on the aforesaid road. A specific affidavit be filed by the State before the next date of hearing. List for hearing on 12.9.2012. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Kaurav for necessary compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj 2....M.C.C.No.5 o28. 08.2012...
In Reference Vs. Dileep @ Dipu and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(1) Cr.Ref.No.1/2012 & Cr.A. 161/12 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL REFERENCE No.1/2012 IN REFERENCE Received from First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla (M.P.) Versus 1. Dilip @ Dipu S/o Suresh Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 29 years 2. Shailesh S/o Birju Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 25 years 3. Manish S/o Churaman Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 20 years 4. Kuldeep S/o Vijay Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 25 years All residents of Kurvan Tiraha Chowki Hirdenagar, Police Station Maharajpur District Mandla (M.P.) For the State : Shri Umesh Pandey,Govt.Advocate. For the Respondents/ Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Adv. with Accused : Shri Mukesh Pandey & Shri Jagat Sher Singh, Advocates. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.161/2012 APPELLANTS:1. Dilip @ Dipu S/o Suresh Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 29 years 2. Shailesh S/o Birju Raghuvanshi (Bhaina), aged 25 years 3. Manish S/o Churaman Raghuvanshi, (Bhaina), aged 20 years ...
Ghanshyamdas Patel Vs. Sarju Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
WP No.12959 o28. 08.2012 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2012, (Ann. P-1) whereby his application, filed under Section 21 of CPC for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of impugned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijawar, district Chhatarpur, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments in view of available copies of papers filed before the Tribunal on behalf of respondents- claimants, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to raise the impugned objection at the appropriate stage after recording the evidence before the Tribunal on final arguments, so also subject to any order of the Tribunal on such question on ar...
Ramayan Prasad Sen Vs. Ramniranjan Sen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13083 o28. 08.12 Shri Dipak Okhade, counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of order dated 6.7.12 passed by the IV Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in C.O.S.No.20-A/11 whereby his application filed under Order 13 rule 10 of the CPC as well as the application under section 45 of the Evidence Act to call the record of some other case from other court/office and to get examine the signature of the compromise application filed in some earlier case from the hand writing expert respectively, have been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments, in the available scenario of the case in which aforesaid applications have been filed after closing the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs, on making certain query from the petitioners counsel regarding maintainability of this petition at this juncture, on which, inste...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »