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.
Shri Ajay Batri Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
1 Review Petition No. 20/2013 11.1.2013 Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for respondents. Review of order dated 23.7.2012 passed in W.P. No. 9187/2012 is being sought vide this petition. W.P. No. 9187/2012 was directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur which dismissed the Original Application No. 54/2009; whereby, the claim of the petitioners who are employees of Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd. for fixation of their pay on promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer under Central Dearness Allowance and as per F.R. 22 (1) (a) (i) was negatived on the ground that having been absorved in the Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam LTD. w.e.f 1.10.2000 the Fundamental Rules as applicable to the Government servant are not applicable to the petitioner and secondly on p...
Shankar Shah Walke Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panc ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Writ Petition No.19506/2012 11.1.2013 Shri M.S.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate, for the State/ respondents. The petitioner, while holding the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khajra, Janpad Panchayat and Tahsil, Baihar, District Balaghat, has suffered a resolution of no confidence motion. In the result, respondent no.3 Sub- Divisional Officer- cum-Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Baihar, District Balaghat, vide order dated 20.9.2012, Annexure P8, approved the no confidence motion and declared that the post of Sarpanch has fallen vacant. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.2 Collector, Balaghat, under section 21(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, who has dismissed the same vide order dated 2.11.2012, Annexure P10. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition. The learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the order dated 2.11.2012 passed by respondent no.2 being...
Ajay Mishra Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Cr.A.No.174/2001 11.01.2013 Shri Narayan Dubey, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the respondent. I.A.No.26527/2012 for temporary bail of the appellant Ajay Mishra, because of marriage of his sister scheduled for 14.02.2013. This application is filed for temporary release of the appellant solely on the ground that his sister is going to be married on 14th February, 2013 and there is no other elder member in the family to perform the rites. The father of the appellant has already died. Apart from this, there is old mother of the appellant and his younger brother. Except appellant, there is no other elder male member in the family to perform the rites. On the aforesaid ground, the temporary bail has been filed. A report has been called for from Police Station, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur and as per the report dated 07.01.2013, police has verified that the marriage of sister of appellant is scheduled for 14th February, 2013. Considering aforesaid fact, I.A....
Kailash Kamle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Writ Petition No :18073. 2012 Kailash Kamle and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 11.01.2013. Shri Vipin Yadav for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K.Chourasia, Govt. Advocate, for the State. Keeping in view the order passed by the Commissioner, MP Housing Board, Indore as contained in Annexure P/13 dated 7.9.2012, wherein it is indicated by the Commissioner that it is only the State Government/Respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is competent to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass orders with regard to the right of the petitioners to the property in question. For the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take action and decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the matter is not decided by the Commissioner, as directed hereinabove, status quo as is existing shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petitio...
Bhimrao Ramrao Ambedkar College of Education Vs. the State of Madhya P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1...W.P.No.14864 o10. 01.2013 Shri Dharmesh Soni, Counsel for petitioner No.1. Shri Ashok Pandey, counsel for petitioner No.2. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. A.G.for respondent No.1 and 2. Ms.Anjalli Paranjpe, Counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Soni learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 submitted that the State of M.P.Higher Education Department is considering the controveRs.in compliance of order Annexure P-1 dated 31.7.2012 in W.P.14932 of 2010 and similar directions may be issued in the case of petitioner No.1 also. It is submitted by Shri Soni that the objection of the office in respect of territorial jurisdiction is in respect of petitioner No.2 and not against the petitioner No.1. From the perusal of the office note, we find that there is objection in respect of petitioner No.2 which is situated at Ujjain and it appears that no cause of action has arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the petitioner No.2 ought to have filed petition at Indore Bench of this C...
Mukesh Samundere Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 W.P.No.22757/2003 10.1.2013 Shri James Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Further three weeks time is sought for by respondents to file return. On 12.12.2012, on a time being sought for filing return it was observed: The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition is pending since 2003 despite of several opportunities being granted the return has not been filed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by an order dated 1.8.2012 this Court had directed that in case the return is not filed till the next date of hearing, this Court may consider directing for personal appearance of the officer-in-charge of the case. MRS.Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Advocate undertakes to file the return positively within a period of four weeks. It is further submitted that if the return is not filed by the next date of hearing the officer-in-charge of the...
A.C. Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
W.P.No.14753/2008 10.1.2013: None for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vikram Jhori for respondent No.2. Challenging the action of the respondents in denying grant of selection grade to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner was appointed as Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 25.4.1988. He was confirmed on the said post on 4.6.1990 and on completing 10 years of service in the year 1998, it is stated that he was entitled to be granted selection grade in accordance to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Labour Judiciary Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1965. Inter alia contending that a post fell vacant on 23.9.2003 for grant of selection grade but instead of granting him selection grade w.e.f.23.9.2003 he has been compulsorily retired w.e.f.15.6.2008, this writ petition is filed, on the ground that denial of benefit of selection grade to the petitioner is unsust...
Gram Panchayat Kesala Vs. National Highways Authority of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.21/2003 10.01.2013 Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Shri K.N.Pethia, Advocate for the respondent no.1. The writ appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchchya Nyayalaya (Khandnyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.15984/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has vacated the stay order granted earlier on the construction of four lane road through village Kesla. After going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has observed that there is no prima facie case made out for granting stay since any principal decision whether to construct a four lane road or otherwise is within the domain of the executive authority. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has observed that the main contention of the petitioners that their objections have not been decided is not correct since objections have already been considered and decide...
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Criminal Revision No.1773/2012 10.01.2013 Shri Mahendra Choubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No.1-State. Shri Rajesh Sen, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan District Satna, whereby the case was remanded under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., because no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the respondents No.2 and 3 assaulted the victim Dipak by various weapons including the sharp cutting weapon. In the X-ray report no fracture was found to the victim Dipak, but in the C.T.Scan report it was found that there was a depressed fracture on his head, and therefore a charge sheet was filed against the respondents No.2 and 3 for other offences and the...
Shakti Namdev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14391/2012 10/01/2013 Shri Vivek Baderiya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 22/11/12 in connection with Crime No.175/12 registered at P.S.Bharveli, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under sections 420, 409 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of belated FIR of six year. The only allegation against this applicant is that he misused the fund of panchayat (Rs.59,840/-) to purchase the tractor for transporting the muram. It is further submitted that the tractor owner to whom the said amount was paid has sworn an affidavit that he committed the mistake in writing the number of vehicle. Trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »