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.
Purushoottam Sahu Vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Purushottam Sahu & Anr. versus Shri Vinot Kumar & Anr. Writ Petition No.19482 23. 1.2013: Shri P.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bramhadutt Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order Annexure P-1 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate Raisen under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said application under Section 14 is taken after orders are passed in accordance to procedure contemplated under Section 13 of the Act and once an order is passed under Section 14 of the Act a remedy of appeal under Section 17 is available to the petitioner and as the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the competent Debt Recovery Tribunal, a petition directly before this Court challenging action is unsustainable. A bench of this Court in Gwalior in the case of Ram Singh ver...
Brajesh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
CRR.No.2271/2012 Criminal Revision No.2271/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen in S.T.No.120/2004, by which the charges for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 11.1.2004, at about 5 a.m.in the morning, the deceased Mahendra Batham who was a peon in the Civil Court, Silwani had committed suicide at his own house by hanging. He left a suicidal note against the applicants that they were harassing him and they were giving threat to him, so that he would be indulged in some judicial proceeding. After due investigation, the police had filed a charge-sheet against the applicants and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed th...
Pohp Singh Vs. Guddi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
CRR.No.1870/2012 Criminal Revision No.1870/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in criminal appeal No.173/2012, whereby he took the cognizance of appeal against the judgment dated 21.3.2012 passed by the JMFC, Budhni, District Sehore in criminal case No.169/2011, in which acquittal was directed against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 494 of IPC. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously considered that provisions of section 372 of the Cr.P.C.are having over-riding effect over the provisions of section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C.If the beginning of section 37...
B. K. Gandhi Vs. M. P. Sate Co-operative Oil Seed Grovers Federation L ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
-1- W.P.No.4129/2011(s) 23/1/2013 Shri Aniruddha Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondents. Placing reliance on the decision dated 16.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.2791/2005(s) (Ravindra Lele V. M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Grovers Federation Ltd and otheRs.learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the instant petition is similarly placed as said Ravindra Lele. It is urged, that though Writ Appeal No.201/2009 is preferred against the order dated 16.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2791/2005(S) ; the operation of said order has not been stayed. It is accordingly contended that similar benefit as given to Ravindra Lele (supra) be extended to the petitioner ,i.e, grant of seniority from initial date of appointment and not from the date when his services were absorbed with the M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers Federation Ltd,. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if respondents are directed to c...
Shambhu Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1865/2012 Shambhu Prasad Patel. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.D.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 23rd day of January, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced for one year's SI with fine of Rs.100/- and one year's SI vide judgment dated 13.12.2011 passed by the JMFC Mauganj District Rewa in Criminal Case No.229/2006. In Criminal Appeal No.24/2012 the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa linked at Mauganj vide judgment dated 13.9.2012 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the present...
Tulsi Ram Vs. Director General of Police (Crime)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :1141. / 2013 Tulsi Ram and others versus Director General of Police and others 23.01.2013. Shri Manot Jain for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Interalia contending that a complaint filed by the petitioners with regard to mis-representation and illegal registration of a sale-deed is not being inquired into by the police authorities, this writ petition is filed. If the complaint filed by the petitioners with regard to illegal registration is not being inquired into, petitioners have a remedy of filing a complaint before a Court of competent jurisdiction under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the learned Court can always take cognizance of the matter and grant benefit to the petitioneRs.As the petitioner has a remedy of filing private complaint in accordance to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I see no reason to issue notice to the respondents in the matter. Accordingly, the petit...
Narendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 989/2013 23.1.2013 Shri Ashok Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Aggrieved by nongrant of Kramonnati (FiRs. and Second) and nonpromotion, petitioner, a Clerk in District Co operative Central Bank Ltd., Panna has filed this petition. Contending that, the Kramnnati Scheme is applicable to the employees of Bank and he having completed the requisite years is entitled for the same. It is also urged that having worked against the post of Statistical Officer, the petitioner is also entitled for promotion to the said post. Though the relief for grant of Kramonnati has been claimed; however, no material is brought on record that the scheme of Kramonati applicable to State Government servant has also been made applicable to the employees of Co operative Banks; Annexure P/18 an order applicable for State Government employees does No. substantiate the claim. Similarly, no ru...
Mohd. Shamsad @ Appu Vs. Badri Prasad Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.15677/2012 23/1/2013 Shri Raj Kumar Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer for respondent / State. This petition has been preferred against the order 16.11.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawgaon in Criminal Case No.51/12, affirming the order of Magistrate, declining examination of Hand Writing Expert. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Let the matter be listed in the week commencing from 11.2.2013 for consideration of stay application. In view of the fact, that the case has been listed for final argument on 28.1.2013, the trial shall not deliver the judgment till the next date of listing this matter. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE 2 M.Cr.C No.15677/2012 dcs/-...
Antar Singh Solanki Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
W.P.No.2573/2013 22.02.2013 Ms.Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents on advance copy. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, in the case of Smt. Rani Gangrade versus State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.4361/2006 (S).decided on 01.05.2007, and affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.587/2007, decided on 04.01.2009. This Court has further dealt with the issue whether the persons like petitioners would be entitled to grant of benefit of revised pay scale or not in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.5332/2010, decided 03.07.2012. This Court while dealing with such a situation has specifically laid down that the persons like petitioneRs.if were granted the benefit of minimum of the pay scale with the allowances applicable on the posts on which they were working, they would be entitled to the revision of the pay scale, ...
Shikha Sanodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Writ Petition No :1020. / 2013 Shikha Sanodiya versus State of Madhya Pradesh and three otheRs.22.01.2013. Petitioner present in person alongwith Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on advance notice. Respondent No.4 present in person alongwith Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate. I.A.No.1068/2013 has been filed by the parties jointly. It is taken on record. The aforesaid application has been filed by parties alongwith their affidavit and it is indicated in this application that all the difference that existed between them has been resolved and they not propose to proceed in the matter in accordance to the agreement entered into between them and the indications made in this regard in I.A.No.1068/2013. In view of the above, respondent No.4 submits that he is willing to withdraw the complaint made by his father with the police authorities and he has no grievance with regard to the matter which is subject matter of the said complaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »