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.
Dilip Kesharwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2361/2012 10.1.2013 Shri Som Mishra, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.26435/2012 filed by the appellant for staying the direction given by the trial court in para 100 of the impugned judgment. The appellant, while posted as Sub-Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division Amarwara, District Chhindwara, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.14,00,000/- from complainant Arun Pratap Singh (P.W.1) which was reduced and settled for Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant had demanded the illegal gratification to make the payment of pending bills amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-. Priyanka Chauhan, wife of Yogesh Chauhan (P.W.4) had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- in the bank account of appellant on 11.8.2010 and later cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was seized from the appellant at the time of trap. The trial court, having regard to these facts and also the evidence of Arun Pratap Singh and Yogesh Chauhan, has hel...
Smt. Mona Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 W.P.No.21335/2012 10.1.2013 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel 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 (sup...
Jitendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
W.A.No.1446/2012 11.01.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This intra Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 4.12.2012 in Writ Petition No.17290/2012, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal as the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 154 read with Section 201, 202 and 319 of Cr.P.C.Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge. A.Praj....
S.P.Bhatt Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Writ Petition No. 8955 Of 2008 10.1.2013 Shri Manoj Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. Petitioners by way of present petition seek following reliefs: I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing that portion of order dated 4/3/2003 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 4/12/2007 (Annexure P/11) which provides for grant of Kramonnati pay scale of Rs.50008000/ to the petitioneRs.II) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to substitute the pay scale of Rs.55009000/ for Rs.50008000/ in the order dated 4/3/2003 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 4/12/2007 (Annexure P/11) so far it relates to the petitioneRs. They may further be directed to pay arrears of sala...
Shri B.L. Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
R.P.No.971/2012 11.01.2013 Shri Ranjeet Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection raised by the Registry with respect to not filing of the certified copy of the impugned order sought to be reviewed is overruled as the original record is available. Heard. This review application has been filed pointing out the apparent error committed in disposing of the Writ Petition No.13164/2009(s) vide order dated 29.11.2012 indicating that after hearing the counsel, this Court came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Verma versus State of M.P.and others (W.P.No.379/2009) decided on 19.7.2011. This Court has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case of Smt. Santosh Verma (supra).It is pointed out that there were certain more claims with respect to pay fixation made which are not covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Sa...
Syed Mujaddid Hasan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
WRIT PETITION No.13141/20010. 01.2013 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Shri V.K.Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel for the intervener. The petitioner, a social worker, has approached this Court in respect of certain construction made on Plot No.39, Survey No.105, situated at Punjab Bank Colony, Idgah Hills, Bhopal. Learned Counsel for the intervener submits that the entire basis of the petition that the said construction has been made on Government land, is misconceived since the land was purchased by the intervener in the year 1973 and later on sold for recovery of sales tax dues in the year 1987 to the husband of respondent No.5. Learned Counsel for the intervener as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.5 admit that a civil suit questioning the auction sale by which the respondent No.5 has purchased the land was filed in the court at ...
Parmanand Chakrawarti Vs. Bijju @ Vijay Chakrawarti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Criminal Revision No.2110/2012 10.01.2013 Shri Ashok Koshta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No.4-State. Heard on IA No.22929/12, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. A delay of 8 days has been caused in filing the present revision, which is not so much, and therefore for the reasons mentioned in the application, IA NO.22929/12 is allowed and the delay of 8 days is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission. By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.651/2008 whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the police officers of Police Station Gorakhpur District Jabalpur had registered a case against the respondents No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable...
Bharat Kumar Basantani Vs. Shri M.P. Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Conc. Case No :1278. 2012 Bharat Kumar Basantani & another versus Shri M.P.Shukla and another 10.01.2013. Smt. Seema Agrawal for the applicants. Shri Akhil Singh for the non-applicant. Interalia contending that orders passed by this Court on 28.11.2011, in Writ Petition No.2491/2006, has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. On 28.11.2011, the order passed by this Court reads as under: In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: Maintaining status quo as is existing today in the matter, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti respondent No.5 and respondent No.2 shall supply to each of the petitioners a copy of the enquiry report and ask them to show cause as to what they have to say in the matter. On the same being done, each of the petitioners will submit their reply/explanation within a period of 15 days thereof and on the same being done, respondents shall pass fresh orders after adverting to consider t...
Sewa Singh Vs. Krishna Kant and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 S.A No.322/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.322/1997 APPELLANT : SEWA SINGH Vs. RESPONDENTS : KRISHNA KANT AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Himanshu Mishra and Shri Qasim Ali, Advocates. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (10/01/2013) The appellant/tenant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1997 passed by the 11th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.27-A/95 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.41-A/95 dated 25.9.1995 has been partly modified.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant is a tenant of residential House No.1416/8, Gupteshwar Ward, Jabalpur for a rent of Rs.250/- per month. It is stated that the original landlord Shri Narayan Shanker filed a suit for ev...
Ram Das Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.1445/2012 10.01.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. It is an admitted position that there is no finding regarding the existence or otherwise of the permission under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the impugned order dated 10.4.2012. Therefore, with the consent of parties, the impugned order dated 10.4.2012 passed in W.P.No.10838/2008(S) is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The delay, if any, is condoned. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge HS...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »