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.
Sukalyan Ray Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Sukalyan Ray versus State of M.P.and Anr. Writ Petition No.1378 30. 1.2013: Shree Wakeel khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the state The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to migrated family from East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and was rehabilitated in 1970 in village Badalpur District Betul, under a rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner claims that he too is entitled for allotment of land (Patta) under the scheme framed for rehabilitation of displayed persons. His grievance is that although he has made a representation dated 9-8-2011 , Annexure P-1, in this regard before the Collector, Betul (respondent No.2)for allotment of Patta and issuance of Rin Pustika, but till date no decision has been taken on it. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on petitioner's right regarding the allotment of land (Patta) this petition is being finally disposed of with a direction to the Collector (respond...
Mahendra Kumar Shiv Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.1199/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1199/2002 APPELLANT: Mahendra Kumar Shiv, S/o Charan Singh Shiv, aged 29 years, Katiya by Caste, R/o Dugal Tola- Ukhwa, P.S. Roopjhar, Tehsil Baihar District Balaghat. Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Shri S.K.Nema, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Public Prosecutor. Date of hearing :24. 01/2013 Date of judgment:30. 01/2013 Per: Rakesh Saksena;J.(JUDGMENT ) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 19.7.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.171/2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment ...
Wilson Nair Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.6189/2009 Wilson Nair & another State of M.P. & others 30.1.2013 None for petitioners. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Addl. A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Kunal Thakre, counsel for respondent nos.5 to 9. Learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 9 submits that a similar matter W.P.No.15053/2008 was heard and decided by this Court by order dated 9.11.2012 and the aforesaid order covers the subject matter of this petition. In W.P.No.15053/2008 (Silas Rajesh Lal & others Vs. State of M.P. & others) this Court vide order dated 9.11.2012 held thus :- The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs:-1. That the defaulter trustees be seriously dealt with and the entire trust properties called in question may kindly be reverted back on the name of the Public Trust Methodist Church in India by cancelling and declaring all the sale deeds and the entire transactions as contained in the body of writ petition as null...
Jagdish Totala Vs. Ashok Billore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri Manikant Sharma, counsel for the petitioneRs.This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 7.11.12 passed by Ist A.S.J., Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.465/12, affirming the order of JMFC dated 8.5.12 passed in Criminal Case No.11068/10, declining further opportunity to cross-examination and closed the right of cross examination. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. List the matter in the week commencing from 4th March, 2013. In view of the fact, final judgment of the case is fixed in next week only, trial Court is directed not to deliver final judgment till the next date of listing of the matter. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Ambekeshwar Pathak Vs. the Oriental Bank of Commerce Rewa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Ambekeshwar Pathak versus The Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rewa & Anr. Writ Petition No.9581 30. 1.2013: Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging a revenue recovery certificate issued by the Tahsildar seeking recovery of `4,36,984/- from the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner took an education loan of `3,55,544/- from respondent No.1 Bank on 20.8.2001, when the loan was not repaid and when the amount stood outstanding, proceedings were initiated by the bank before the Tehsildar concerned under the M.P.Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987, wherein on 4.5.09, petitioner appeared and kept on raising certain objections and took time, finally when the revenue recovery certificate is issued petitioner has challenged the same by contending that his objections have not been properly considered and the recovery as ordered. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has taken loan and amount has not been repaid. In the writ petiti...
Ganesh Giri Goswami Vs. Kaneeza Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order 14.9.12 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.388/11, affirming the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the JMFC in Criminal Case No 01/08, in which 42 cattle, those have been received by the petitioner on supardginama were directed to give back to respondent No.1. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent No.1. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. List the matter in the week commencing from 11/3/13 for further consideration. In the meantime, records of the Court below be called for. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Jivendra Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Writ Petition No.1260/2013 30.01.2013 Mr.Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was working on the post of Guruji only the honorarium is being paid to him although the work of Assistant Teacher/Shiksha Karmi is being taken from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 19.09.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.15290/2011. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the case of the petitioner shall be dealt with by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and with a view to maintain parity, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authorit...
Rammani Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.15824/2012 30.1.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia, seek a direction to the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher after completion of three years alongwith all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is covered by order dated 08.11.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.18921/2012. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by learned Panel Lawyer. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6 to consider the grievance of the petitioners by taking into account the fact that similar benefit has been awarded to the similarly situated employees and to decide t...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Savita Devi Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.165 of 2012 & Criminal Appeal No.2084 o30. 01/2013 Shri Manish Dubey, counsel for the appellant/complainant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate for the State. Since both the above cases arise out of the impugned common judgment passed by the Court below, these are being disposed of by this common order.2. State has filed an application under Section 378 (III) of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment whereas complainant has challenged the same order by filing this appeal against the impugned judgment passed on 08/08/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli, District Singrouli (MP) in old Session Trial No.213/2008 and new Session Trial No.194/2010, acquitting respondent no.1Smt. Savita Devi Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC and respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of ...
Smt. Saroj Bhargav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Review Petition No.52/2013 30.01.2013 Mr.R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 11.1.2013 passed in writ petition No.22058/2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the fiRs.paragraph of the order it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred from Community Health Centre, Panagar to Community Health Centre, Majhauli at her own expenses. The words 'at her own expenses' be deleted as the transfer was not made at her own request. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the Government Advocate. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the words at her own expenses. be deleted from the order dated 11.1.2013 passed in writ petition No.22058/2012. This order shall be read in conjunction with order dated 11.1.2013. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...