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.
Prashant Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1629/2012 Prashant Pathak.Applicant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh..Non-applicant For the applicant : Dr.(Smt.)Rashmi Pathak, Advocate For the non-applicant: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE U. C. MAHESHWARI ****** ORDER (28.1.2013) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in Special (Criminal) Case No.15/2005 by the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Jabalpur, whereby he has dismissed the applicants application for discharge.2. G. P. Pathak was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department. The applicant and co-accused Pankaj Pathak are his sons On 21.1.1995 respondent, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, filed a charge sheet against G. P. Pathak under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short, ...
M/S Sharda Engineers and Contractors Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1...W.P.No.1322 of 2008 W.P.No.1323 o28. 01.2013 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. This order shall decide W.P.1322 of 2008 and W.P.1323 of 2008 filed by the same party against imposition of Central Sales Tax for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 and 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. Two revisions were preferred by the petitioner for the aforesaid two assessment yeaRs.both were dismissed by separate orders filed as Annexure P-5 in both the petitions, both the petitions are being decided by this common order as the factual position in both the cases are identical. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.1322 of 2008. The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that for the date of hearing i.e., ss12.9.2005, no notice was served to the petitioner though the order reveals that notice was served by affixture. The petitioner had moved an application Annexure P-6 before the respondents for hearing of the revision but it ...
Balu Dane Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
1 W.P.No.1305/2013(S) 28.1.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Petitioner Daily Wager (Waterman) employed in GovernmentPost Matric Anusuchit Jati Boys Hostel Burhanpur since 11.7.97 vide this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant him regular pay scale in the light of circular dated 17.3.1978. It is urged that on the basis of aforesaid circular daily wage employee engaged in Tribal Welfare Department has been extended the benefit vide order passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanubai V. State of M.P and otheRs.decided on 27.8.2011 by Division Bench of this Court at Indore. It is contended that respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision rendered in Dhannubai (supra).Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents have no objection if direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as per decision rendered ...
S.K. Jahoor Vs. Executing Clerk Anil Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.15365/2012 24/1/2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Dy Government Advocate for respondent / State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2012 passed by JMFC, Damoh, taking cognizance of the matter under Sections 419, 467, 468, 469, 471, 109, 205 and 120-B of IPC. Let notice of this petition be issued to the respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. Let matter be listed on 18.2.2013 for consideration of stay application. In the meantime, learned Dy. Government Advocate shall ensure availability of the case diary. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed the implead the State as a party in the matter within three working days. Office is also directed to reflect the name of A.G.(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/- 2...
Ram Bhuwan Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1 W.P.No.21440/2012 24.1.2013 Shri Subash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt.Advocate for respondent/State Petitioners by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in lieu of they having acquired Bachelor of Education/ Diploma in Education/ Basic Teachers Instruction)(B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) qualification while in service. The aforesaid relief has been claimed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Asha Saxena V. State of M.P and otheRs.SLP (Civil) No.18881/06 wherein the claim of Assistant Teachers appointed prior to 16.6.1993 for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring (B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) was upheld (In respect of grant of two advance increments it has a relevance because w.e.f 17.6.1993 relevant rule for recruitment of teachers provided for B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI as an essential qualification for appointment).It has been held in Asha Saxena (supr...
Ramu @ Ramnarayan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1041/2010 Ramu alias Ramnarayan Yadav, aged about 34 years, son of Santosh Yadav, Resident of Ward No.30, Bhuinbandh, Purani Basti Shahdol, P.S. Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol Respondent & Criminal Appeal No.1226/2010 Sonu Yadav, Aged about 21 years, son of Mohan Lal Yadav, Resident of FCI Godam ke paas, P.S. Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for both appellants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, P.L. for the respondent-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (24/01/2013) These appeals are interlinked as preferred a...
Smt. Motijhari Devi Vs. Smt. Uma Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Smt. Motijhari Devi versus Smt. Uma Devi & ORS.Writ Petition No.16431 24. 1.2013: Shri R.S.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Challenging an order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the Appellate Court granting temporary injunction and interfering with an order passed by the trial court refusing injunction, this writ petition has been filed by the defendant. Plaintiff herein Smt. Uma Devi filed the suit and the dispute in question pertains to construction being made by the defendant on a wall existing in the western side of the building/house of the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that she is owner of the property in question, particulars of which are given, and on the western side a wall is situated. According to plaintiff the wall is constructed by her and she is owner of the wall. On the western side of the plaintiff's house is situated the house of defendant and it is stated that initially the defendants have made certain c...
Laxmi Bai Sahu College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1...W.P.No.18781 of 2011 Laxmi Bai Sahu College N.C.T.E.& others 24.01.2013 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner institution initially started its B.Ed. couRs.at Napier Town, Jabalpur for which a due permission with certain conditions was accorded by the respondents. As the College was started in a rented premises, the petitioner institution purchased a property at Lamti to fulfill the requirements of norms of Year 2000. In 2006 norms were changed so the petitioner institution had again purchased a property at Benikheda, Jabalpur and constructed a College building on the same land. The survey number of the land as per the Sale Deed was but because the petitioner institution purchased a part of the land so as per the order of diversion Annexure P-3 dated 3.3.2006, appearing at page No.40 of the paper book, petitioner's diversion application wa...
Smt. Kalpana Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Writ Petition No.968/2013 24.01.2013 Mr.Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for adjournment in order to seek instructions in the matter and to file reply. Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a limited departmental examination for recruitment for the post of Tracer is scheduled to be held on 27.1.2013. However, the petitioner is not being allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination on the ground that she has crossed 50 years of age. It is further submitted that fixation of the age limit is per se arbitrary and in case the petitioner is not permitted to appear in the departmental examination, she will suffer irretrievable prejudice. Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the respondents shall permit the...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Somdatt
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
CRR.No.92/2011 Criminal Revision No.92/2011 24.1.2013 Shri Sushil Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.1284/2011, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 100 days in filing the present revision. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the impugned judgment dated 3.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Appeal No.24/2010 and a delay of 100 days is caused in filing of the present revision. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the ground taken in the application relating to delay, appears to be not satisfactory. A period of limitation is given to the parties, so that they may contact with their Advocates and to prepare their revisions in that period of limitation and therefore, if the applicant takes a plea that much of his time was utilized in taking legal advice then, it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »