Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Suraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1277 OF 200.Suraj & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 5th day of October, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 26/6/2009 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.481/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced for ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, they were to undergo for six months' rigorous imprisonm...
Smt. Siyabai Lariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P. No.16509/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents- State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the services rendered by them in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Aniruddha Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, questio...
Smt. Mithla Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
smt. mithla gupta versus state W.P.No.16914/2012 5/10/2012 Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a ANM in the Primary Health Centre, Chandla and by the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 13.7.2012 she has been transferred to Sub Health Centre, Barha, P.S.C.Gourihar in the same district of Chhatarpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner is a 57 years old widow lady and has 49% disability on her leg and therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. On the aforesaid grounds raised, petitioner has already represented to the competent authority of the department and it is for the competent authority to take note of the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the same. Accordingly, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of t...
Smt. Anita JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16911/12 (s) 5/10/12 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.on advance notice for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 13/07/12 by which petitioner who is holding the post of 'Supervisor' has been transferred from Bhopal to Narsinghgarh in Distt. Raigarh. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner's husband is suffering from cervical spondylosis and is undergoing treatment in Bhopal and, therefore, if the transfer is effected, it would adversely affect his treatment. That apart, education of petitioner's children is indicated to be further reason for challenging the transfer of the petitioner. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not such on the basis of which judicial review into an administrative order of transfer is permissible. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting libert...
Bhilai Steel Plant Vs. Kusum Chemical
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
M.C.C.No.1092/2012 05.10.2012 Shri Akhilesh Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of W.A.No.101/2011 which was dismissed because of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.02.2011 passed in W.A.No.101/2011. This application is filed on the ground that the peremptory order could not be complied with within time period as fixed by order dated 02.02.2011, however, it is complied with on 23.02.2011 that was beyond five days of the time limit fixed by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the aforesaid default was bonafide, may be condoned and the writ appeal be restored. From the perusal of record, we find that initially the applicant filed an L.P.A.before the High Court, it was dismissed because of the order passed by Apex Court in case of Jamshed N. Guzdar versus State of Maharashtra (IT 200.(1) SC 370).but subsequently, the Later Patent Appeal was restored in view of enactment of Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) A...
Mahesh Kumar Invati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
W.P.No.16357/12 5/10/12 Shri Vijay S.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Inter alia contending that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.596/10 Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.and others has issued certain directions in the matter of granting Honorarium to Gurujis, this writ petition is filed seeking similar direction as has been issued by a Division Bench on 15/12/10 in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) . After the judgment was rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) , the matter was considered by the State Govt. on 12/08/11 rejecting the claim on the basis of the reference made by a Division Bench. After the claim was so rejected by the State Govt. on 12/08/11, Gopal Chawla and others again filed a writ petition before the Gwalior Bench of this Court being W.P.No.5963/11 and a learned Single Bench at Gwalior has decided the writ petition vide order dated 13/12/11 and the said judgment i...
Jageshwar Prasad Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.15854/20105. 10.2012 Shri Rakesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services rendered by him in the Local Body has not been considered for grant of pension treating it to be a qualifying service. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other similar connected writ petitions decided on 27.11.2003 holding that the period spent in Janpad Sabha/Municipal Bodies has to be counted as pensionable service. It is conceded at bar that matter is similar as decided in W.P. No.4919/2003 (Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others) and other connected matters on 27.11.2003 by this Court. This Court has passed the following order : In these writ petitions, question involved is common. T...
Anil Kumar Purohit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Anil Kumar Purohit versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16922 5. 10.2012: Ms.Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State, on advance notice. Petitioner who is working as Sub Engineer in the office of S.D.O., Sub Division No.1, Bhopal and who has been transferred to Water Resource Division, Raghavgarh, has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer merely on the ground that after transfer of petitioner no one is being posted in his place. Petitioner's wife is also working in Bhopal and pointing out certain personal inconveniences due to ailment of his old parents petitioner seeks interference into the matter. Shri S.S.Bisen, points out that petitioner is continued at Bhopal for more than 4 years and as he is transferred on administrative consideration that also to the nearby Division Raghavgarh, no interference is called for. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view tha...
Narendra Kumar Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16481/20105. 10.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned i...
Sukhram Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16407/20105. 10.2012 Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. It is the contention of the petitioner that while issuing the gradation list, before the name of the petitioner, wrong date of appointment has been mentioned. Though a representation has been made but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, he has come before this Court. The basis on which the gradation list has been prepared by the respondents-authorities is not clear. The covering memo itself prescribes that in case there is an error in mentioning any facts in the gradation list, the person concerned can make a representation. If such representation is made by the petitioner, the respondents-authorities are duty bound to consider the same and decide according to law. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within a p...
- ‹ Prev
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- Next ›
- Last »