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.
Sukhna and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1713/1996 Sukhna & another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Amod Gupta, counsel for the appellant No.1 duly appointed on behalf of the Legal Services Authority. Shri Alok Vagrecha, counsel for the appellant No.2. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 4th day of January, 2013) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.9.1996 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.260/1991, whereby each of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Jail Sentence Sentence Default of Fine Sentence 366 of IPC R.I. for 2 years. Rs.500/- R.I. for 3 months. 376 of IPC R.I. for 3 years. Rs.500/- R.I. for 3 months....
Kiran Kumar Ojha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 W.P.No.36/2013 04.1.2013 Shri M.Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Petitioner, retired Chief Municipal Officer vide this petition seeks direction to respondents to extend benefit of Krammonati Scheme as is made applicable to Chief Municipal Officer by the State vide its letter not F4-130/2011/18-1 dated 21.11.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation has been preferred by the petitioner; however, no heed has been paid by the respondents. It is further contended that respondents State may be directed to dwell upon the representation preferred by the petitioner objectively and pass a reasoned and cogent order within stipulated period. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has no objection if the State and its functionaries are directed to dwell upon the representation preferred by the petitioner. Having regard to the contention put forth by the respective counsel, the pet...
Mangleshwar Singh @ Munna and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Cr.A.No.1353 o04. 01.2013 None for the appellants. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned PL for the respondent- State. In the absence of appellants' counsel and their counsel the adjudication of this appeal on merits is not possible, hence the case is adjourned with a direction to list the same by fixing a date in the month of March 2013. The presence of the appellants before this court for such date be secured by issuing a bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand).Such warrant be issued positively within five days from today and the same be sent through Superintendent of Police, Satna with a direction to execute the same under his guidance and supervision, so that the same be not returned back unserved. The case be listed accordingly. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Smt.Gulab Vs. Panna Lal Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Second Appeal No.733/1999 (Smt. Gulab versus Pannalal Lodhi and otheRs.04.01.2013 Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been compromised between the parties in accordance with the compromise entered into between them on 02.07.2007 and submit that the order passed by the courts below be modified and the present appeal be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is seen that the parties have filed an application seeking permission to compromise which is signed by all the parties as well as their advocates and that they have filed a copy of the Rajeenama (Compromise) entered into between them on 02.07.2007 which is signed by them along with an application and it is prayed that the decree in terms of the compromise be passed by this court. The compromise arrived at between the parties is in the following terms:-1. ;g fd i{kdkj d...
Smt. Sunita Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Cr.Revision No.1903/2012 Smt. Sunita Mishra Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.K.Chourasia, PL for the State. Order reserved on :20. 11.2012 Order Passed on :4. 1.2013 ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 13.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.2 (MPEB) Bhopal in S.T. No.691/2011 whereby the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC have been framed against the applicant.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the applicant is owner in possession of plot No.353, Rohit Grih Nirman Shakari Samiti Maryadit, Rohit Nagar, Phase-I, Shahpura, Bhopal. A complaint was made by one Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain with the allegation that Amarnath Mishra/husband of applicant has fraudulently transferred aforesaid Plot No.353 in favour of the applicant.3. T...
Smt. Sarswati Krishnani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
M.C.C.No.3/20104. 01.2013 Shri K.K.Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The Registry has raised an objection that no correction in the cause title of disposed of writ petition is permissible and in fact if any error was there in the order, review petition should have been filed. It is contended that since the order dated 12.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.20354/2012 is not sought to be reviewed on the ground that no error is committed in passing the order, the review petition would not be maintainable. In view of the aforesaid, the objection raised by the Registry is overruled. It is contended that by inadvertent mistake, the right place of posting of the applicant No.3/petitioner No.3 has not been mentioned properly in the cause title of the writ petition and, therefore, the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is not complied with by the respondents. This Court has simply disposed of the ...
Shiv Prasad Raikwar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.22036/20104. 01.2013 Ms.Savita Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Shankaran, learned Counsel for the respondents. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner is challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.11.2012 dismissing his Original Application challenging the compulsory retirement order. The petitioner was directed to be retired compulsorily from service with effect from 01.01.2009 vide order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the respondents in exercise of powers under Clause (j)(ii) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, in public interest. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal correctly considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement and held that there was no case of non-application of mind or malafides. The Central Administrative Tribunal observed that action was taken accordin...
Suresh Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 W.P.No.21070/2012 04.1.2013 Shri M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f 1999 as has been held in case of Smt Prerna Korane w/o Shri Pramod Koranne v. State of M.P.and otheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26.4.07. In view of nature of relief as has been sought for by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for benefit of second kramonnati in furtherance to order passed in Smt. Prerna (supra) and settle the claim within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioner is not found eligible, respondents are directed to pass a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms . No costs. Certified copy as per rules. (SANJAY YADAV...
Diksha B.Ed. Mahavidyalaya Jayanti Singrauli Sidhi Th:mittulal Chouras ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 R.P.No.981/2012 Diksha B.Ed.Mahavidyalaya National Council for Teacher Jayant Singrauli Education & others 4.1.2013 Shri J.K.Pillai, Counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.5. This is second review petition against our order dated 21.3.2012 in W.P.No.3262/2010. Earlier a review petition was filed which was registered as R.P.No.607/2012 and dismissed on 24.8.2012. Again against the same order, this second review petition has been filed. Though it is submitted by the petitioner that Regulations of 2007 were not applicable in respect of the institutions which were granted recognition under the old regulations and in this regard, he has placed reliance to a judgment of another Division Bench in W.P.No.14743/2010-Indrapuri Asha Shiksha Samiti versus State of M.P.& another dated 19.4.2012, but the same aspect was considered by this Court in W.P.No.4838/2010-Gyan Sagar Shiksha Mahavidyalaya versus NCTE & ot...
Smt. Heeramani Pandey Vs. Shri Shyamal Kumar Mandal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
W.P.NO.16606/2010 04-01-2013 Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Avnish Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties have mutually settled the dispute , therefore, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous due to mutual settlement entered into between the parties. C.C.as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp 2 W.P.NO.3653/2008 04-01-2013 This petition was filed in the year 2007, it is yet to be admitted and the default pointed out by the office has not been rectified, even though more than 6 years have passed. Considering the fact that the default has not been rectified till date, I see no reason to keep the matter pending. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp 3 W.P.NO.13034/2007 04-01-2013 This petition was filed in the year 2007 and defaul...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »