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.
Shankarlal Bhargava Vs. Universtiy of Technology
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Shankarlal Bhargava versus University of Technology & ORS.R.P.No.714/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Keeping in view the fact that the claim of the petitioner was already considered and has been rejected on the basis of the recommendations made, the order passed on 5.12.2011 in W.P.No.19999/2011 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization was an error, as consideration has already been made and the claim has been rejected. In view of the above, application stands allowed, the order passed on 5.12.2011 in W.P.No.19999/2011 is recalled. The said writ petition be restored to it's original file, it be placed for orders before the appropriate bench. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Smt. Bhagwaniya Vs. Ramkali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.A.No.993/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Uday Raj Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Abhishek Gulatee, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 11. Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.12 and 13. Heard on admission. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Satna rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-appellant, this appeal has been preferred. The trial Court while passing the order has observed that the defendants No.12 and 13 have purchased the property from Pardeshiya. Pardeshiya filed a suit challenging the sale- deed which was dismissed up-to the High Court as per the judgment dated 26.8.2011, affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Smt. Bhagwaniya being sister of Pardeshiya later on filed the suit seeking declaration of title and injunction wherein the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected with the obser...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohd.Abrar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
1 Cr. A. No.2904/2000 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2904/2000 State of M.P. Vs. Mohd. Abrar and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Shri Manikant Sharma, counsel for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (Delivered on 24th day of September, 2012) The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.4.1997 passed by the J.M.F.C. Udaipura, District Raisen (Shri J.P. Singh) in S.T. No.210/96, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.2. The prosecutions case, in short is that, the complainant Ishrat Jahan (PW-1) got herself ...
Smt.Rajkumari Vishwakarma Vs. Smt.Shashi Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15183 o24. 09.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. (1) The petitioner- defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 3.9.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class- II, Chhatarpur in Co.No.1-B/10 whereby his right to adduce evidence has been closed and in such premises he has not been extended opportunity to examine one remaining witness namely Manish Jha, whose affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC was already filed before such Court. (2) After taking me through the petition as well as annexed papeRs.petitioner's counsel argued that on the third date to record the evidence of the petitioner- defendant without considering the sufficient cause regarding not appearance of the aforesaid witness Manish Jha, the impugned order has been passed by the trial court under wrong premises. In continuation he said that on extending one opportunity with ...
Smt.Anita Bopche Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Anita Bopche & ORS.versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15517/2012 24/09/2012 Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable by the week commencing from 29th of October, 2012. In the meanwhile, implementation of the circular of the State Government dated 14.2.2012 Annexure-P32 shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition and the State Government to show as to why the students, who have passed qualifying examination in the private institute are being discriminated and what is the reason behind issuance of circular dated 14.2.2012 Annexure-P32. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Sanjay Kumar Dohare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
24.09.2012. Shri O.P.Namdeo for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working on the post of Workshop Instructor (Electrical) in Government Polytechnic College, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur. By the impugned order-dated 12.9.2012, petitioner is attached temporarily on the same post in a newly established Engineering College at Nowgaon, Chhatarpur. Challenge to this order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that it is in breach of the transfer policy and, therefore, is unsustainable. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate, points out that petitioner is only attached for the purpose of establishment of an Engineering College in Nowgaon. He is already working in Nowgaon, there is no change of his Headquarter, which remains Nowgaon and as no statutory rule or regulation is shown to be violated in attachment of the petitioner temporarily, Shri Bisen submits that interference be not made. Having heard learned counsel for ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Atul Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
M.C.C.No.730/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for respondents though advance copy of the petition is served. This is an application for extension of time for compliance of order dated 18.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.5861/2012. The said writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to consider the grievance of the respondent No.1, with respect to grant of dealership. It is contended that the Grievance Cell constituted by the applicant is required to conduct its hearing, making verification and investigation in the complaint and then to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. In view of this, it is contended that the said proceedings cannot be concluded in a period of one month. A prayer is made to extend the time to comply with the direction of this Court upto 31.12.2012. Considering the aforesaid, M.C.C.is allowed. Let the order passed in W.P.No.5...
Basant Ram Tiwari Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15602/2012 (B.R.Tiwari versus General Manager and otheRs.24.09.2012 Heard Shri R.N.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the respondent no 1 against the other respondents but no decision thereon has been taken since 2008 inspite of the fact that the matter has been favourably forwarded by the local authority on 17/18.03.2008. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and take a decision thereon after conducting an enquiry into the matter. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously, in accordance with law after conducting an enquiry into the matter and after hearing ...
Shobhit Samayya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
W.P.No.15371/2012 (Shobhit Samayya & anr. versus State of M,P. & ors.) 24.09.2012 Heard Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the police authorities have issued notices to the petitioners on 07.09.2012 and 08.09.2012 asking them to appear before the respondent No.2 under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.for conducting an investigation in Crime No.162/09 registered against the petitioners under sections 420,467, 468, 471/34 of the I.P.C.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police authorities have totally ignored and had not taken into consideration the fact that after investigation in Crime No.162/09, the police has already filed a charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur against the petitioners which matters are registered as Criminal Case No.47/09 and Criminal case No.3630/2009. It is submitted that as t...
Lala Bhaiya and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.306 OF 199.Lala Bhaiya & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 24th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1/2/1997 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.74/1993, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act.) and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- eac...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »