Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Rajendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.14698/2012 28.01.2013 Mr.Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioners inter-alia seek a direction to the respondents for appointment of the petitioners as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III with all consequential benefit. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by order dated 20.05.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8788/2011 (s).In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of on similar terMs.Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge a....
Sushil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Sushil Kumar Jaiswal versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1157 28. 1.2013: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Looking to the grievance of petitioner, respondent No.3 the Inspector General of Police, Shahdol is directed to proceed and decide the same in accordance to law by issuing necessary instructions to the police officers concerned with regard to complaint of petitioner and investigation to be done thereof. Necessary action be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Mayank Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
W.P.No.759/2013 28.1.2013: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents No.1 to 5 along with Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Vijayraghavgarh. The Corpus is also present in person. It is a case of the petitioner that he is married to the corpus and as she is being illegally detained by her parents in Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni, he has filed this Habeas Corpus petition. On the last date of hearing i.e.on 22.1.2013 the Corpus was produced by the police authorities and she gave a statement that she does not want to go with the petitioner and she has expressed her desire to be with her parents. As it was indicated by the petitioner that she has given the statement on the said date due to pressure exhorted by her parents, this Court directed appearance of the Corpus before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Katni on 23rd January, 2013 and it was also directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall give an opp...
Shivprasad @ Lallu Gupta Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1274/1997 Shivprasad alias Lallu Gupta, aged about 22 years, Son of Laxman Gupta, Agriculturist, R/o Village Paniha, Police Station-Majhouli, Distt. Sidhi Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through SHO Police Station-Majhouli, Distt.-Sidhi Respondent PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A.SIDDIQUI Shri P.R.Bhave, Sr. Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Govt. Advocate for respondent/State. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 22/01/2013 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 28/01/2013 JUDGMENT Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 23rd June, 1997 delivered by the then Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.172/95, convicting the appellant for alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo seven years R.I.and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months.2. The factual matrix of the case are that in the night at ab...
Manish Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Criminal Revision No.2458/2012 28.1.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard on admission. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.02/2012 whereby he has dismissed the applicants applications filed under sections 91 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code.).The applicant is a Sub-Inspector in the State Police Service. He and T.R.Choudhary, Assistant Sub-Inspector, are being prosecuted for allegedly accepting bribe from complainant Hukum Yadav. In the charge sheet filed against them it is clearly stated that the complainant had produced the voice-recorder in which conversation regarding demand of bribe was recorded and a transcript of the same was prepared. It is also stated therein that with the help of a laptop, two compact discs of the transcript were prepared which were seized and sealed separately in envelopes. During the tri...
Keshari Prasad Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.10352/2009 28.01.2013 Mr.A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the posts of Naib-Tahsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.12202/2003. In view of aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petition on the basis of the criteria which was published in the notifications dated 17.7.1995 and 27.12.1995, in proper perspective and if he is otherwise found eligible to be appointed, necessary order in that regard shall be issued. The aforesaid exercise be done within a peri...
Vijay Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Writ Petition No.770/2013 28.01.2013 Mr.Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry in respect of the certificate (Annexure P/5) furnished by the respondent No.5 for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 and several other candidates had submitted their applications for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. The petitioner has requisite qualification but the respondent No.5 was appointed. Thereafter, on enquiry being made by the petitioner with regard to qualification of the respondent No.5, it was found that the diploma certificate of computer examination (Annexure P/5) submitted by the respondent No.5 was forged. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the representat...
Shiv Kumar Shukla Vs. Shri Ashok Varnaval
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
CONC. NO.63/13 28-01-2013 Shri Sanjay Tambrakar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of 5 th pay commission recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000(V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the petitioner was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner. not the grievance of the petitioner is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission recommendation is not exten...
Shring Shri Arunodaya Shiksha Samiti Vs. National Council for Teacher ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
W.P.No.1245/2013 28.1.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondent nos.3 & 4. This petition is directed against an order dated 4.6.2012 Annexure P-5, by which the prayer of petitioner for grant of recognition for D.EL.ED. additional intake, was declined by the respondents. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition, with liberty to file an appeal against the order Annexure P-5 before respondent no.1. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that the period of limitation for filing an appeal was sixty days, which has already elapsed, so such liberty may not be granted. Considering the objection and the prayer made by the petitioner, we propose to dispose of this petition with following directions :- 1. Petitioner may submit an appeal against order Annexure P-5 dated 4.6.2012 passed by respondent no.2 before respondent ...
Bhanwarlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Criminal Revision No.26/2013 28.01.2013 Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 337 (2 counts) of IPC vide judgment dated 30.8.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Sehore in Criminal Case No.1456/2009 and only a fine was imposed for such offences. In Criminal Appeal No.2209/2012 the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore vide judgment dated 23.11.2012 confirmed the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the present revision is filed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the concurrent view has been taken by both the Courts below and it was found that the applicant was rash and negligent in driving the truck. The applicant negligently over took another truck, and therefore dashed the motorcycle of the victim on the wron...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »