Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Jamuna Prasad Vs. S.K.Salam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Contempt Case No.297/2012 27.2.2013 Shri R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Shankaran, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have filed their response stating therein that after disposal of the writ petition the matter was reconciled and account of GPF of the petitioner was scrutinized once again. According to the respondents, it has been found that after final adjustment of whatever missing credit pointed out, an amount of Rs.24,891/- was required to be paid to the petitioner for which the authorization letter was issued on 14.10.2011. The said amount was paid to the petitioner by the Treasury Officer through Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sidhi. Accordingly, it is contended that the order dated 5.9.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14880/2011 has been complied with. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a statement made in the reply by the respondent is incorrect. According to document the huge amount was available in t...
Osho Vision Limited Vs. Nebulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 C.R. No.731/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.731/2005 APPLICANT:1. OSHO VISION LIMITED, Through Swami Punargathan Deria, Director Osho Visions Limited, Village-Kuchwada. Tahsil Udaipura, District Raisen, Office at Osho Ashram, Babai, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) 2. Swami Satya Swabhav (Sajjan Singh Pawar) Member, Osho Visions Limited, R/o Choupadapura, Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.). Versus RESPONDENT:1. Nebulal, S/o Budhadhu Kahar alia Swami Satyateerth Bharti aged about 50 years, R/o Leela Bungalow, Plot No.97, Wingh-D31/2, Koregaon Park, Poona (Maharashtra). Presently A/272, Meenal Residency, Raj Homes, Raisen Road, Bhopal(M.P.) 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Collector Raisen, District Raisen (M.P.) Shri R.K. Samaiya, for the applicants. Shri Mrigendra Singh, for respondent No.1. ORDER (27.02.2013) 2 C.R. No.731/2005 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2005, passed by learned Fi...
Phoolchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.14433/2012 M.Cr.C.No.14433/2012 27.02.2013 Shri S.D.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent/State by Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Shri Purshottam Patel, Advocate for respondent no.2. Present petition has been preferred for passing appropriate order for consideration of compromise petition filed by the parties under section 320(2) Cr.P.C Vide judgement dated 17/08/2012, the petitioner was convicted by JMFC, Katni in Criminal Appeal No.2478/2007 under section 354 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I.In the court of Sessions Judge, Katni, appeal is pending against the aforesaid judgment. In appellate court, parties submitted a compromise petition along with application under section 320(2) Cr.P.C.Vide order dated 11/10/2012, the Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Appeal No.184/2012 dismissed the application on the ground that offence is not compoundable even with the permission of court also. This petition is disposed of with direction to the Sessions Judge, Katni th...
Girja Shankar and ors. Vs. Ram Sipahi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Criminal Revision No.285/1998 27.02.2013 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, counsel for the applicants. Shri J.A.Shah, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 14. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.15/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 5.8.1996 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal revision no.35/95, whereby the order dated 10.3.1995 passed by the S.D.M.Rewa in criminal case no.166/89 under Sections 145 & 146 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed and no order of possession was granted in the impugned order. The revision was filed in the year 1998 and the civil dispute between the parties is also disposed of. Learned counsel for the parties accept that civil disputes are not disposed of. Under such circumstances, where nothing was granted by the impugned order to any of the parties then, not it is not required to be decided by this Court with regard to possession of the property and therefore, t...
Shankar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2981/2013 27.2.2013 Mr.A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.R.Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia , seeks a direction to the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners in Adhyapak Samvarg from Shiksha Karmi- III. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 30.7.2012 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7387/2012(S).In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order passed by Division Bench in W.A.No.596/2010 (Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.and otheRs.and pass appropriate ordeRs.Needless to state, the competent authority shall pass a speaking o...
Vansh Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2989/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance copy. It is contended that the controveRs.involved in the present petition with respect to grant of appropriate pay scale after grant of Kramonnati has been put at rest by this Court in W.P.No.21288/2012 (S).Santosh Kumar Pandey and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 21.12.2012. It is contended that since the order was also issued in the similar manner in respect of petitioners while granting them the Kramonnati, the error was committed in giving the pay scale, the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same manner. Learned Government Advocate has no objection in deciding the writ petition, in case it is directed to decide the representations made by the petitioners in terms of the order passed in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey (supra).This Court while considering the controveRs.has passed the order ...
Rajjak Qureshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Cr.R.No.2100/2012 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State. Shri Wakil Khan, counsel for the respondent no.2. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.439/2012 whereby the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 498-A of I.P.C were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Rajia on 19.9.2010 died at Tili Hospital, Sagar. A report was lodged to the concerned Police and investigation was initiated. The post mortem upon the body of the deceased was under taken and viscera was also sent for examination. No poisonous substance was found in the viscera. After the investigation the Police has filed a challan for offence punishable under Section 498-A o...
Satyendra Saket @ Babu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Criminal Revision No.317/2013 27.02.2013 Shri B.L.Sahu, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T.No.137/10, whereby the application of the applicant was dismissed for requisitioning one MLC report and a Rojnamchasanah. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the applicant could file a copy of MLC report and Rojnamchasanah by using his right of information and therefore, he could not prove the relevancy of those documents. Similarly, there was no reason as to why K.N.Mishra (PW-7) was to be recalled. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, no relevancy is visible to call for those documents in the trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. It is nowhere mentioned that the histor...
Dr.Radhakishan Vishwakarma Vs. the Health Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.2632/2013 27.02.2013 Mr.Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks regularization from the date of initial appointment on the post of Medical Officer in the light of Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a represen...
Chandra Mohan Gore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.1375/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and on interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within seven days by registered AD. Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks. It is contended that the age of superannuation of the employees like petitioner working in the Cooperative Societies have been enhanced by making amendment in the rules from 60 years to 62 years with effect from 31.3.2012. In view of this, it is contended that the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years is per se illegal. Considering the aforesaid, the operation of the impugned order dated 7.1.2012 Annexure P-1 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The petitioner be permitted to continue in the department till he completes the age of 62 years until further ordeRs.List immediately after six weeks. C.C.as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »