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.
Prem Narayan Upadhayaya Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Writ Petition No.4595/2009(s) 7.2.2013 Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur dated 26.2.2009. The petitioner was punished by way of removal from service in the year 1985 which punishment was subsequently converted to compulsory retirement vide order dated 3.6.1986. Apparently, he was found guilty of the misconduct of not taking a train in a certain section. His defence that he did not had the requisite facility of pilot and guard was not accepted. Thereafter the petitioner kept on communicating with the respondents asking for a certain circular which could have absolved him from the misconduct. However, he filed the present original application before the Tribunal in the year 2008 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it is an attempt to open a dead issue wh...
Ku.Neharika Saraf Vs. Rani Durgawati University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
W.P.No.2017/2013 07.02.2013 Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, Advocate for the respondent. I.A.No.1956/2013 for correction in the cause title and also in the body of petition. Considering the nature of amendment as sought in the application, we allow the application and permit the petitioner to correct the description of the petitioner and amend the petition, as prayed in the application. Necessary amendment be carried out in the petition during the couRs.of the day. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner has cleared 1st and 2nd Semesters of LL.M., but could not clear the 3rd Semester. The petitioner has been permitted to prosecute her studies of 4th Semester. She has deposited the fees with the respondent, but the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination, which are scheduled from 11th February, 2013. It is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the examinat...
Tarendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No.2175/2012 Tarendra and two others Vs. State of M.P and another For the Applicants : Shri J.A.Shah, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Shri Alok Tapikar, Panel Lawyer. ORDER (07 /02 /2013 ) U.C. Maheshwari,J.The applicants/accused have directed this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the JMFC, Damoh district Damoh in Criminal Case No.2929/11 whereby the charges of section 498-A, 323 in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against each of them.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 9.10.11, the victim/complainant/ respondent No.2 Smt Bharti Mishra, wife of applicant No.1 while daughter-in-law of applicant No.3 and sister-in-law of applicant No.2 lodged the FIR at PS Kotwali, Damoh against the applicants for the offence of section 498-A, 323 in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and sec...
Manmeet Singh @ Tinku Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6075/2012 7.2.2013 Shri A. Usmani, Adv.for the petitioner. Ms.Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing the proceedings of S.T.No.82/2012 pending in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara under Section 306/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3,4 of the M.P.Riniyon Ke Sanrakshak Adhiniyam, 1937. As per prosecution, Santosh S/o Ganesh Yadav committed suicide by hanging on 18.2.2012 and during the marg enquiry in Marg No.18/2012, it has been found that the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from petitioner Manmeet Singh @ Tinku and a sum of Rs.40,000/- from Rohit Nagvanshi and he was harassed for the money borrowed by him and due to harassment he committed the suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demand of money advanced to the deceased does not amount to instigation/abatement to commit suicide as the...
Shreeram Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :3560. of 2008 (S) Shreeram Namdeo - V/s - State of MP and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.N.Pethia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 07/02/2012 Challenging the order-dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur cancelling the order granting change of cadre to the petitioner from the post of Driver to that of Office Assistant Grade III; order-dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Collector, Jabalpur dismissing the review application; and, order-dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. 2- Records indicate ...
M/S Eurobond Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
1 W.P.No.6492/2012 7.2.2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhijeet Awasthy for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddique, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent No.2. Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Challenging the order Annexure P/5 dated 21.2.2012 passed by respondent No.1 exercising the powers of revision under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner along with respondent No.3 and about more than 30 other persons/ establishment submitted their applications for grant of prospecting lincense with regard to area in question as detailed in para 5.1 situated in Village Kurro, Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur with regard to mining of Laterite, Manganese etc.It seems that the prospecting License with regard to the present petitioner was allowed and therefore, the matter travelled to the revisional a...
Virendra Chakravarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Writ Petition No.16956/2012 07.02.2013 Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Sudesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 5. Mr.Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Learned Panel Lawyer submitted that he has filed reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. However, the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace it and place it on record. Let a copy of reply be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents No.3 & 5 and respondent No.4. In view of the fact that the return has already been filed, no orders are required to be passed on I.A.No.1391/2013. Accordingly I.A.No.1391/2013 is disposed of. Let rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner be filed within a period one week. Let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 18th February, 2013. Interim order dated 05.10.2012 shall remain stayed till next date of he...
M/S Nad Private Ltd. Vs. Vikash Chauhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Writ Appeal No.251/2012 7.2.2013 Shri Brian Da Silva, learned Senior counsel with Shri Pankaj Dubey and Shri V.Bhide, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior counsel with Shri B.P.Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General, for respondent no.2. By this writ appeal, the appellant has called into question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2012 by which the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition against the validity of the order dated 19.10.2011 granting a prospecting licence to the appellant under section 11(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) and conferred its preferential rights on a reconnaissance permit holder to obtain a prospecting licence or mining lease. It is not disputed that the appellant was granted reconnaissance permit on 4.2.2009 in pursuance of application dated 5.1.2007 and an agreement was also entered in...
Suresh Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.588/2013 07.02.2013 None for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, learned PL for the respondent-State. Learned PL submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. It is noted that this matter is placed in the weekly list of this week and since Monday, i.e.on 4.2.2013 on every date the case was called up but no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to prosecute this petition. In such premises, with the assistance of the State's Counsel and the case diary, this petition is being taken for consideration. On behalf of the applicant husband of the deceased this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail, as he is in custody since 25.9.2012 in connection of Crime No.548/12, registered at Police Station Kotwali, district Rewa for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. As per story of the prosecution as appeared from the case diary, the applicant solemnized love marriage with the deceased and there were quarrels between them in regular couRs.of the life...
Vishnu Prasad Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Writ Appeal No.97/2013 7.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Heard on admission. Admit. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the case is finally heard. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition against the second show cause notice. This view of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with. However, in the circumstances, we consider it appropriate that the reply to the show cause notice be decided as a preliminary point after taking into account the reply. The decision shall be by a reasoned order on the propriety and legality of the continuing second proceedings. With the above observation, the appeal stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.BOBDE) (AJIT SINGH) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE ps...
- ‹ Prev
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- Next ›
- Last »