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.
Anil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Coal India Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Writ Petition No. 21703 Of 2012 4.1.2013 Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Office has raised objection in respect of maintainability of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner, a Foreman Incharge Grade A1, posted at KuMd. Sub Area, Bishrampur Area, district Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) has filed this petition seeking direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Executive in E1 Grade w.e.f. 31.12.2010 with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, fixation, seniority. The direction is sought to Coal India LTD. through its Chairman, Kolkata (West Bengal), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G), the General Manager, Jamuna Kotma Area, district Anuppur and General Manager, Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., ...
Mahadev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1455/2011 4.1.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate, for the State. Heard on I.A.No.20426/2012, which is a repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of sole appellant Mahadev. His earlier bail application has been dismissed after full consideration on merits vide order dated 14.10.2011. The appellant has been found guilty of committing gang rape on the prosecutrix as a result of which she even delivered a baby girl. The Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test confirms that the baby girl born is of the appellant. No ground to take a different view is made out. The application is dismissed. JUDGE ps...
Guddu @ Harishankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1583/2011 4.1.2013 Shri V.K.Tyagi, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate, for the State. Heard on I.A.No.26636/2012, which is third repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Guddu alias Harishankar. His fiRs.bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 12.9.2011. Prayer for bail has not been made on the ground that he has already undergone more than 2 years of the jail sentence and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard finally in near future. It is to be noted that on similar circumstances, co-appellant no.2 Babaiya alias Prakash has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 7.12.2012. Accordingly, it is directed that if appellant no.1 Guddu alias Harishankar executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and furnishes a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni, the execution of sentence of imprisonme...
V.K. Sahu Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
W.P.No.13185/2012 04.01.2013 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 11.7.2012 passed in Original Application No.588/2011, by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for brevity) Jabalpur. The petitioner has sought to challenge the orders dated 3.6.2011, 5.8.2010 and 8.9.2010, by which the respondent No.6 was appointed as enquiry officer, by filing Original Application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended that the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway made a check and thereafter sent a charge sheet for imposition of major penalty on the petitioner. The enquiry officer was appointed on 15.10.2009. A representation was made by the petitioner for change of the enquir...
Munnalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
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 Revision No.1705/2011 Munnalal & another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the objector. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 4th day of January, 2013) The applicants have preferred this revision against the order dated 6.9.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora in S.T.No.486/2009, whereby the application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution is accepted and the applicants are made accused in the case.2. The facts of the case, relating to the present revision, in short, are that, the deceased Rashmi Bai Patel expired in...
Kn.Sharma Vs. the State of Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 W.P.No.22171/2012 04.1.2013 Shri M.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. In respect of relief sought by the petitioner, petitioner has already filed a representation (Annexure P-5) dated 22.12.2012. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation has not been considered by the Competent Authority in respect of the grievance raised by the petitioner. As the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Competent Authority, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 , the District Education Officer, Jabalpur, who shall dwell upon the representation filed by the petitioner and pass a a reasoned and cogent order within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter which is to be gone into by the Competent Authority. The petition is disposed of finally in a...
L.D.Bairagi Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 W.P.No.21903/2012 04.1.2013 Shri A.Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief:7. i) Command respondents to grant career progression to petitioner from the date her juniors have been granted such ACP with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and interest thereon; When asked about on which scheme the petitioner is claiming discrimination ,learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on documents Annexure P-7 has to state that ACP Scheme is of 2008. The petitioner has however not filed the ACP Scheme 2008. At this stage learned counsel is unable to state as to when he will file the aforesaid scheme. In view whereof, four weeks time is granted to file the scheme. List the matter after the scheme is brought on record. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Das...
Arun Kumar Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Writ Petition No. 21087 Of 2011 4.1.2013 Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Heard. Placing reliance on resolution dated 26.7.1999 passed by President in Council, Nagar Panchayat, Beohari district Shahdol and orders dated 1.8.2000 and 6.5.2010 passed by respondent No. 3, Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development, Rewa, district Rewa (M.P.). the petitioner, a Moharir, Nagar Panchayat Beohari seeks direction to respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 11.8.2000. It is contended that vide resolution dated 26.7.1999, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector was considered by President in Council; however, the same was not acted upon by the respondents. It is further conten...
Sukhnandan Savner Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
M.C.C.No.1457/20104. 01.2013 Shri Sanjay Sharma, 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 12.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.17177/2012 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 instead of impleading the proper authorities such as Conservator of Forest and Divisional Forest Officer in the writ petition, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department was arrayed as a respondent. Because of this error, the order passed by this Court is not being complied wi...
Lekh Chand @ Bhaiya Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Cr.A.No.94 o04. 01.2013 None for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, learned PL for the respondent-State. In the absence of appellant's counsel and his 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 appellant 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, Shahdol 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- Next ›
- Last »