Madhya Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments
Satish Kumar Raizada Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2012
WP No.6889 o30. 08.2012 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri M. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.10. The petitioner's counsel is ready and willing to argue the matter on merits for final adjudication of this matter but appearing counsel for respondent No.10 seeks short adjournment on the ground of not availability of arguing counsel Shri A.P.Shroti as he has gone out of station. On earlier date Shri Shroti took an objection that the petitioner's counsel does not remain present whenever the matter is taken up for hearing but today an adjournment is sought on behalf of respondent No.10. However, without entering in such controversy, considering the prayer of respondent's counsel, the case is adjourned with a direction to place the same under the same head on 11.9.2012. The interim order passed earlier is hereby continued till next hearing of this writ petition. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Bisen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
K.G.Bisen & ORS.versus State & Anr. W.P.No.20798/2011(s) 28/09/2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned GA for the respondents. I.A.No.9451/2012 has been filed by Petitioner No.2 Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava indicating that he has been selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Project Coordinator and, therefore, he prayed for permission to withdraw the writ petition and delete his name from the cause title. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I.A.No.9451/2012 is allowed. Petitioner No.2, Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava is permitted to withdraw the writ petition and his name be deleted from the cause title. The petition so far as it relates to Petitioner No.2 Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Necessary corrections be made in the cause title within one week. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Reeta Devi Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.P.No.738/12 28/09/12 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This review application has been filed for correcting an interim order passed by this Court on 7/09/12. The writ petition is still pending and the only correction sought for that the place of posting of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the order passed on 7/09/12. If that be so, petitioner should file an application for clarification in the pending writ petition so that necessary orders can be passed. It is not possible to consider the same in a separate review application as the petitioner can always move an application in the pending writ petition. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the pending writ petition. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anjana Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Smt. ANJANA JHARIYA versus State W.P.No.16375/2012 28-9-2012 Shri A.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as ANM at Health Centre, Sarra Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur. By the impugned order dated 14.7.2012 petitioner has been transferred to Primary Health Bandha Sainkheda in the same district of Narsinghpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground of personal inconveniences of the petitioner due to her father-in-law's ailment and the fact that petitioner's husband is also a Teacher and is posted in Katangi and petitioner has responsibility of looking after her father-in-law. Keeping in view the grounds raised by the petitioner and taking note of the fact that such grounds are to be considered by the competent authority of the State Government, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner's filin...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.27/2012. 28.09.2012 Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.for the appellant. Heard . Call for the record of the tribunal and list for admission. Also heard on I.A.No.1140/12 an application for stay. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Additional Member Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Pipariya has passed an award of Rs.29,000/- in MAC C No.27/10 on 13.10.11 and half of the amount of award has been deposited before the tribunal and execution of further amount may kindly be stayed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case aforesaid I.A is here by allowed and it is directed that execution of the remaining half of the amount shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. List this appeal alongwith M.A.No.4892/10, M.A.No.4895/10 and M.A.No.4896/10 for analogous hearing. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Pd.Lodhi and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.442/1997 Gaya Prasad Lodhi & Others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in S.T.No.134/1992, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 326 read with section 34, and 323 or 323 read with section 34 of IPC and each sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- respectively. In default of payment of fine, one year's and 3 months' rig...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Shahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16143/2012 (Mohd. Shahid versus State of MP and another) 28.09.2012 Heard Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's second appeal pending before the respondent No.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 way back in February, 2012 but no decision thereon has been taken inspite of the fact that the requisite numbers of copies are also deposited by the petitioner on 06.03.2012. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record filed along with the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has not approached the second appellate authority in person to find out the status of his appeal. Infact the petitioner has not even mentioned not does he knot the number of the second appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.15656 o28. 09.2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, (the same appears to be covered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) for quashment of order dated 28.2.2012, (Ann. P-7) passed by the Collector, Narsinghpur in Revenue Appeal No.44-B/121/10-11 affirming the order dated 29.1.2010, (Ann. P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Narsinghpur in Revenue Case No.49/B-121/ 09-10 whereby after holding guilty to the petitioner to violate provision of 247 (7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, in short The Code., to carry out the illegal mining from the alleged land, penalty of Rs.13,44,000/- has been imposed on him. According to the order of SDO such order has been passed under Section 222 and 247 (7) of the Code under the powers sub dele...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Singh Sindhno Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.16466/12 (s) 28/09/12 Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Dy. Ranger' in Sub Range Office Rolagaon Forest Range Aasta Forest Division Sehore. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5/12/11, petitioner was transferred from Sehore to Aasta and, thereafter, on 13/07/12 vide Annexure P-2 from Forest Range Aasta to Forest Sub Range Rolagaon. By the same order Annexure P-2 dated 13/07/12, respondent No.3 Shri Baliram Dhurve was transferred from Sub Range Rolagaon to Sub Range Siddhiganj. It is stated that petitioner took over the charge in Sub Range Rolagaon in pursuance to the order of transfer. After the order of transfer posting the petitioner to Sub Range Rolagaon on 13/07/12 has been enforced, it is stated that respondent No.3 on political influence and by recommendation of the Incharge minister of the district has got his transfer from Forest Sub Range Rolagaon modi...
Tag this Judgment!Visheshwar and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.630 OF 199.Visheshwar & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 28th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28/2/1997 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No.212/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction U/S Sentence Fine Default (IPC) (Rupees) sentenc1. year's RI -- -3. years' RI -- -- 325/149 3 years' RI -- -1. year's RI -- -- All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »