Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Ramesh Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
W.A.No.930/2012 03.09.2012 Shri P. Bhatnagar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 01.08.2012 passed in W.P.No.11659/2012(S) by which a writ petition preferred by petitioner, assailing his transfer order, was dismissed. The appellant was transferred by order dated 13.07.2012 from Tikamgarh to Chhatarpur in the same capacity of Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Scheme. The learned Single Judge has considered the case and dismissed on merit. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has already preferred a representation against the order dated 13.07.2012 to respondent No.2 who may be directed to decide the representation of the appellant. To this, learned counsel for the State, has no objection. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation of the appellant expeditiously as far as ...
M.L. Kumhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
M.L.Kumhar versus State & ORS.W.P.No.14023/2012 03/09/2012 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be Shri Magan Lal Kumhar. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 13.7.2012, one Shri Maganlal Prajapati, an officer has been transferred from Chhatarpur to Khandwa but treating the petitioner to be a transferred person, petitioner is proposed to be relieved. Inter-alia contending that the petitioner is not the person namely Magan Lal Prajapati, who has been transferred, petitioner is Magan Lal Kumhar and, therefore, he cannot be relieved. Pointing out these facts, petitioner represented to the State Government and has filed various documents to show that he is Magan Lal Kumhar and not Magan Lal Prajapati and action of the respondents is said to be unsustainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the matter pertains to clerical error. If an error is committed by the respondents ...
Anil Vs. the State of Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1965/1996 Anil VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anil Dwivedi, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 1st day of October, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.11.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.127/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced for 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months' rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.2.1996, at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening, the complainant Tejrao (P.W.1) w...
- ‹ Prev
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- Next ›