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.
Smt. Aruna Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 609/2012 30.1.2013 Shri J.P. Dimole, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent State of M.P.Heard. Petitioners, who are Guruji appointed under Education Guarantee Scheme, vide this petition seek direction to respondents to extend them the regular pay scale of Assistant Teacher/Shiksha Karmi GradeIII. Reliance is placed on decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A. No. 569/2010 Gopal Chawala and others v. State of M.P. and others decided on 15.12.2010. It has been held in Gopal Chawala and others (supra) : The only contention which has been put forth by learned counsel for the appellants is that the present appellants who were the writ petitioners are serving on the post of Guruji and only honorarium is being paid to them although the task of Assistant Teacher/Shiksha Karmi Samvida Shala Shikshak Class III is being ...
Balram Mehra Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Bangre
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri Priyankush Jain, counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 31.1.12 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal in Case No.7053/07, declining further cross examination of complainant. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within two weeks. List the matter in the week commencing from 4th March, 2013 for consideration of stay application. In view of the fact that period of about more than nine months has been spent in this Court for coming up this matter for hearing, trial Court is directed not to deliver the final judgment of the case till the next date of listing of the matter. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
N.L. Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.1410/2013 30.1.2013 Mr.D.K.Tirpathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents. Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is promotee Range Officer and is aged about 54 yeaRs.In view of the policy of the State Government the Range Officer who is above 48 years cannot be posted at working plan. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to order dated 12.12.2012 passed by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1200/2012 as well as order dated 29.8.2012 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13396/2012. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the pe...
Bhagwat Ram Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Bhagwat Ram Dwivedi & Anr, versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7646 29. 1.2013: Shri J.K.Verma and Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land described in para 5.2 of the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is that notice dated 9.5.2006 has been issued by the M.P.Road Development Corporation asking him to remove certain encroachment made on government land. It is the case of petitioner that a road is being constructed by the M.P.Road Development Corporation and for construction of the road a notice is issued indicating that the encroachment should be removed by the petitioner. Interalia contending that petitioner has not committed any illegality or encroachment as alleged, he is only utilizing/staying in an area which has been purchased by him and denying the allegation of en...
Nem Lal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.794 of 2002 Nemlal s/o Motilal Mehra, aged 38 years, R/o village Manikpur, P.S.- Umaria District Umaria (MP) Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Umaria District Umaria (MP) Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State. Date of hearing :15. 01/2013 Date of judgment :29. 01/2013 (JUDGMENT) Per: Vimla Jain, J.Appellant preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/05/2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria District Umaria in Sessions Trial No.270/2001, 2 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction to run both the jail ...
Radhesyam Vs. Pushpkala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1323/2008 Radhesyam VERSUS Pushpkala Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 29th day of January, 2013) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Betul in Criminal Revision No.1 of 2008 whereby a sum of Rs.1000/- was granted as maintenance to the respondent whereas the JMFC Betul (Shri Girish Dixit) in MJ.No.149/2006 vide order dated 19.12.2007 has dismissed the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.2. The facts of the case are that, the respondent moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C that the marriage of the respondent took place with the present applicant in Arya Samaj Temple on 10.9.2001. After sometime a forceful abortion w...
Arunesh Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1M.Cr.C No.959/2013 29/1/2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, Government Advocate for the respondent. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by JMFC, Satna in Misc. Criminal Case No.1381/12, rejecting the application of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance. This Court vide order dated 7.12.2012 in M.Cr.C No.9043/12 directed release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail and observed that order shall be operative if applicant surrender before the Magistrate within one month from the date of the order. As per Section 205 of Cr.P.C, it is very well in the discretion of the Magistrate to consider the reasonings given for not appearance. Personal attendance of the accused normally is mandatory, but in certain cases this discretion is never taken away from the court concerned, in which appearance is sought. Impugned order appears to have bee...
M.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sang Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Petition No. 18771/2011) M.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and another PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioners Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate. Counsel for respondents Shri S.M. Lal, Government Advocate O R D E R (29/01/2013) PER SANJAY YADAV, J Order passed in this writ petition shall lead to final disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 18026/2011, 18773/2011, 17898/2012, 18050/2012, 18116/2012, 18272/2012, 18277/2012, 18282/2012, 18295/2012, 18034/2012, 18536/2012, 19268/2012, 20336/2012, 20340/2012, 20545/2012, 200551/2012 and 21173/2012, and the Contempt Petition Nos. 1399/2010, 1400/2010, 787/2011, 789/2011, 1728/2011, 1742/2011, 1786/2011, 1895/2011, 309/2012, 380/2012, 631/2012, 1606/2012, 1607/2012 and 1638/2012, as the grievance raised in these batch of petitions is nongrant of benefits accruing to the teachers and other employees wo...
Lakhan Singh Vs. Smt. Basanti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Cr.R.No.499 o29. 01.13 Smt Divyakirti Bohre, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vijay Shrivastav, counsel for the respondents. In compliance of the earlier order, this matter is listed today for final hearing at motion stage. Applicant's counsel submits that inspite making efforts she could not get success to contact with the applicant for taking the appropriate instructions to argue the matter on merits and, in such premises, she pleads no instructions with a further prayer permitting her to withdraw from this case. Considering her prayer, after recording the submission about no instructions, she is permitted to withdraw from this matter. The applicant/husband has filed this petition under section 397(1) read section 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the principal judge Family Court Bhopal in Case No.625/09 whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant was directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month ...
Sudama Prasad Barman Vs. Shri Radheshyam Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Conc. No.1406/2012 29.1.2013: Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the respondents. Inspite of the order passed on 3.1.2013 respondents have not taken any action. The documents produced by the respondents along with I.A.No.1205/2013 goes to show that proceedings have been initiated only after 24th of January 2013 i.e.after a period of more than 20 years of passing of the order on the last date. The manner in which respondents are proceeding goes to show that they are not at all concerned with implementing the directions of this Court within a reasonable time. They are taking their own time to wake up and initiate proceedings. The order in the original writ petition was passed on 12.7.2006 and thereafter in the fiRs.round of contempt proceedings the orders were passed on 11.3.2011. The manner in which respondents are proceeding goes to show that they have scant regard to the directions issued by this Court. It seems that orders...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »