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.
Udaibhan Singh Vs. Shri M.R. Meena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Conc Case No :930. / 2012 Udaibhan Singh versus Shri M.R.Meena and another 05.02.2013. Shri Brajesh Choubey for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this court vide Annexure C/1 dated 7.3.2012, in W.P.No.3737/2012(S).has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Applicant was working as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and it seems that his services were brought to an end. He challenged his removal from service by filing an appeal. The appeal was dismissed and finally the matter came to this Court in a writ petition and ultimately it travelled to Commissioner, Shahdol Division in revision filed by the applicant and in the said revision an order Annexure C/3 was passed on 26.9.2011 by the Commissioner. It was found by the Commissioner that applicants termination is without issuing notice to him, without conducting any inquiry and as the law...
Kaustabh Shankar Jha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Writ Petition No.436/2009 5.2.2013 Shri Shreyas Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.3. We have heard the matter. Shri R.K.Vyas, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division not I, Jabalpur, is also present in person. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits on behalf of the Public Works Department that the road-divider will be of 90 centimeters instead of 120 centimeteRs.which is the normal width for a road-divider in a highway. He also submits that it is necessary to cut minimum fifty trees for the road in question. The Public Works Department may do so. The learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that certain trees may become infirm if their roots are damaged in the process of widening of road. If that be so, such trees can be removed later. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Public Works Department may remove suc...
Guru Govind Singh Education Society Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
1.... W.P. No.2315 of 2001 Guru Gobind Singh Commissioner, Income Tax Educational Society 05.02.2013 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 19.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Jabalpur refusing renewal of the petitioner institution under Section 80 (G) of the Income Tax Act,1961. It will be pertinent to mention here that it is a second round of litigation. Earlier also a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was registered as W.P.4272/2000 and by an order dated 29.11.2000, the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner, Income Tax with certain directions. In compliance of the earlier directions, the matter was taken up by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Jabalpur and on 13.12.2000, the Commissioner, Income Tax directed the petitioner to furnish certain details. It appears that for furnishing details, the case was adjourned for 5.1.2001, 15.1.2001...
Manmohan Shrivastava Vs. Dr. Sunil Kapoor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12252/2012 5.2.2013 Shri Pratush Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved of order dated 14.9.2012 passed in R.T.No.4195/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class (Fast Track).Bhopal (MP) dismissing the application under Section 254(2) read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C.by which record of the Income Tax Department regarding documents seized from complainant be called for. Learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the memorandum of understanding (for short 'MOU') between the complainant and accused dated 23.2.2004 has been executed in the evidence, therefore, the record of the income tax department is not necessary to be called. The seizure of photo copy of MOU has been denied by the complainant in his statement. The application has further been rejected on the ground that earlier for same documents similar application was filed...
Monika Ikka Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
1 W.P.No.15618/2012 05.02.2013 Shri SN.P.Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for respondent/State. Petitioners by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments in lieu of they having acquired Bachelor of Education/ Diploma in Education/ Basic Teachers Instruction)(B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) qualification while in service. The aforesaid relief has been claimed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Asha Saxena V. State of M.P and otheRs.SLP (Civil) No.18881/06 wherein the claim of Assistant Teachers appointed prior to 16.6.1993 for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring (B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI) was upheld (In respect of grant of two advance increments it has a relevance because w.e.f 17.6.1993 relevant rule for recruitment of teachers provided for B.Ed/D.Ed/B.TI as an essential qualification for appointment).It has been held in Asha Saxena (supra) t...
Kanija Begum Vs. Nizam Mohd. Ansari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.78/2011 Kanija Begum and another Vs. Niyaz Mohammad Ansari For the applicants : Shri K.S. Baghel, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate ORDER (Oral) (05.02.2013) U.C. Maheshwari J.This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No.1012/2011 (Niyaz Mohammad Ansari vs. Smt. Kaneeza Begum and another) filed by respondent herein against the applicants for setting aside the impugned order.2. The present revision is preferred by the wife and minot son of the respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in Misc. Criminal Case No.210/2008 whereby their application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed in part only and the sum of maintenance has been enhanced meagerly in continuation of the order dated 13.6.2007 passed in Misc.Cr.Case No.97/2006 by the Family Court, Rewa whereby initially the respondent was directed to pay the main...
Satyendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.CR.C.NO :14342. / 2012 Satyendra Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh 05.02.2013. Shri L.N.Sakle and Shri G.S.Rajput for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. They are heard on the application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case diary perused. Applicant has been arrested in Crime No.40/2012 registered at Police Station Buxwaha, District Chhatarpur for offences registered under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. About eight persons are alleged to have attacked deceased and caused various injuries on his body. As far as the present applicant Satyendra Singh is concerned, even though in the seizure memo he is shown to be carrying an axe, but in the statement of eye-witness Raman Singh Lodhi who is brother of the deceased, applicant is shown to be carrying a lathi and all other similarly situated co-accused like Mulu and Khalak Singh, who were carrying lathi, have been enlarged on bail by thi...
Sher Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Sher Singh Yadav & Others versus State of M.P.M.Cr.C.No.15011 05. 02.2013 : Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the complainant. This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in Crime No.1179/2012, registered by Police Station Chindwada, District Chindwada, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Deceased Kavita is married to Dharmendra Yadav, who is the son of applicant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of applicant Nos.3 and 4. While considering I.A.No.26123/2012 on 18.12.2012 ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants. It was found by this Court after going through the record that the deceased Kavita and her husband were staying in Chindwara, whereas the applicants are staying separately in Sihora. The applicants have been imp...
Pramod Kumar JaIn Vs. Bharat Bhari Udyog Vyaparik Grih Nirman Sahakari ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
C.R.No.46/2013 05.02.2013 Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. The default as pointed out by the office is ignored. After examining the laws, learned counsel for the applicant fairly contends that direct approach to the Civil Court by filing an application for making reference would not be proper remedy. On the other hand, the remedy would be by making an application before the Court where the reference made by the Collector is already pending, for impleadment of the applicant as a party in the said proceedings or to raise claim in terms of the provision of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in case any higher compensation is granted by the reference Court to any of the claimants. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant prays permission to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to make an appropriate application in appropriate manner before the appropriate Forum as stated hereinabove and submit that in case any such claim is made...
Sonu @ Lakshaman Rao Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.Cr.C.No.681/2013 (Sonu alias Lakshman Rao v. State of M.P.) 05-02-2013 Shri Sudesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned G.A.for the State/non- applicant. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking bail on account of the fact that he has been arrested on 6-12-2012 pursuant to the Crime No.531/2012 registered against him at P.S.Bijuri, District Anuppur, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that no case is made out against the applicant in accordance with the statement of the complainant herself. On examining the case diary statements of the complainant Shanti, it is clear that she has stated that she was in love with the appli...
- ‹ Prev
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- Next ›
- Last »