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.
Fagooram Chowdhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Criminal Appeal No.2179/2007 27.9.2012 None for the appellant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. A PUD dated 17.9.2012 has been received from the Central Jail, Jabalpur that the appellant is released from the jail, after execution of sentence and after giving due remissions etc.for which he was entitled. It appears that the entire jail sentence directed by the trial Court is executed upon the appellant, according to the rules and therefore, appeal filed by the appellant turns infructuous. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed being infructuous. PUD is hereby disposed off. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 Cr. A. Nos.383/97 & 565/97 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.383/1997 Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.565/1997 Pyarelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A Usmani, counsel for the appellants in Cr. A. No.383/1997. Smt. Durgesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant in Cr. A. No.565/1997. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28th day of September, 2012) This judgment shall govern the disposal of above mentioned criminal appeals since the impugned judgment in both the appeal is a common judgment.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against 2 Cr. A...
Om Prakash Bhirani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
W.P.No.4122 / 2012 (Om Prakash Bhirani.versus State of M.P.and otheRs.28-09-2012 Heard Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition on an apprehension that the respondent/police authorities shall register a false case against him at the behest of respondent No.5. From a perusal of the petition it is clear that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent/police authorities have taken any action against the petitioner or they are going to register a case against him and, therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the present petition which is based on mere apprehension. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to approach the concerned police authorities for mitigation of his grievances in accordance with law. With the aforesaid ...
Ramu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 Cr. A. No.2383/2008 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2383/2008 Ramu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Siddharth Datt, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7th October, 2008 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Balaghat in Special Case No.7/08, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') ...
Devendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Devendra Singh Rajput versus State & ORS.W.P.No.1272/2011 28/09/2012 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. I.A.No.8250/2012 has been filed by Respondent No.4 indicating that no record of the enquiry is available and certain explanation is given to indicate that the records are not available. Keeping in view the aforesaid, not the matter has to be heard finally and consequential effect of the record being not produced has to be considered and a decision taken finally. In view of the above, office is directed to list the petition for final disposal at motion stage in the week commencing from 5th of November, 2012. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Pramod Chaturvedi Vs. Ramroop Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
M.A.2548/2012. 28.09.2012 Shri Subodh Pandey, Adv.for the appellant/s. Heard on the point of admission. Perused the award. The appeal seems to be arguable hence admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A.No.10120/12 an application for stay. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Umariya has passed an award of Rs.2,41,000/- in Claim C No.64/10 on 29.6.12 and statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited before the tribunal hence execution of further amount may kindly be stayed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case aforesaid I.A is here by allowed. If appellant deposits Rs.75,000/- (Rs.Seventy five thousand only) within sixty days from today, then execution of the remaining amount shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. Issue notice to respondents by both the modes ie. RAD and ordinary post on payment of PF within seven clear working days returnable within four weeks. Call for the record of the tribunal and list...
Ram Harsh Vs. Biharilal Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
R.P.No.279/2010 (Ram HaRs.& ORS.versus Biharilal & ors.) 28.09.2012 Shri R.L.Ariha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri J.L.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have filed this application for review and recall of the order passed by this court in W.P.4240/09 dated 05.10.09, which had been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had already filed a review before the Board of Revenue. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had already withdrawn their review application before the Board of Revenue, however, they could not inform this court about the same when the matter was taken up on 05.10.09, as a result of which, W.P.No.4240/09 was dismissed on account of pendency of the review. It is submitted that no review was pending before the Board of Revenue, therefore the writ petition be restored. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents per contra submits that the petitioners had infact filed a review before...
Jitendra Kumar Nagesh Vs. Life Insurence Coporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Jitendra Kumar Nagesh & Anr. versus Life Insurance Co.of India & ORS.W.P.No.10090/2011 28/09/2012 Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that even though the petitioner No.1 Shri Jitendra Kumar Nagesh was eligible to participate in the process of selection and due to certain mistake, he was not permitted to participate. However, not respondents have permitted the said petitioner to participate in the process of selection. In view of this, the interim order passed by this Court so far as it relates to Petitioner No.1 is modified to the extent that on the basis of the result of the examination, respondents/Corporation may proceed for dealing with the case pertaining to selection of Petitioner No.1 Shri Jitendra Kumar Nagesh in accordance to law. With the aforesaid modification in the order passed by this Court on 24.6.2011,...
Amir Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Amir Khan & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others Writ Petition No.18265 / 2011 (s) 28.9.2012: Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6. Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shri V.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Challenging the order Annexure P-2 dated 16.9.2011 whereby claim of petitioners for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II has been rejected, this writ petition has been filed.2. Facts in brief indicate that all the three petitioners participated in an examination (eligibility test), conducted through out the State for appointment on the post of contract school teachers Grade-II (Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II). The examination was conducted in accordance to a scheme formulated by the State Government as contained in Annexure P-3. According to the scheme the eligibility test was for shortlisting the candidates in accordance to meri...
Water Resources Department Vs. Ramsuresh Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Water Resources Department & ORS.versus State & Anr. W.P.No.7011/2006 28/09/2012 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the petitioneRs.Shri Vikas Mahavar, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa exercising jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act and directing for classification of respondents on the post of Supervisor, this writ petition is filed by the State Government. Finding the respondent to have worked continuously on the post for a period of more than 25 years and finding all the criteria laid down for being classified for the said post as contemplated under Section 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961 are fulfilled, learned Labour Court directed for classification of the employee concerned and challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Vishal Mahavar learned c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »