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.
Gangaram Alias Bittu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C. No.1432/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.134/2011 registered at Police Station Begumganj District Raisen for offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. The applicant is working at Indore for earning his livelihood. There is general allegation against him in regard to commit cruelty for demand of dowry. He is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished as well as his career will be spoiled, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipa...
Dr. K.K. Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2451/20127. 02.2013 Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents-State, on advance copy. It is contended that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.16908/2012 (Dr. S.P.Dubey versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others).disposed of finally on 12.10.2012. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that identically the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission was considered, fixation was already done and the recommendations were sent by the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur on 05.08.2011 but final orders have not been passed by the respondent- State though the scheme made by the U.G.C.has been fully approved and accepted by the respondents. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 that the aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of and the action is b...
Parmanand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.991/2013 M.Cr.C.No.1138/2013 27.2.2013 Ms.Sudha Pandit, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the objector. These are the fiRs.bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Applicant Parmanand is in custody since 27.9.2012, applicant Poonam is in custody since 21.10.2012 and applicant Shravan is in custody since 31.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.503/2011 registered at P.S.Harda, District Harda for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Names of these applicants did not find place in the FIR. During investigation, some persons like Harnarayan, Shantilal, Ramdas and Ramdayal stated the names of these applicants, however, during trial Harnarayan, Shantilal and Ramdas have not supported the prosecution case and Ramdayal is not cl...
Ram Kishore Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.2541/13 27.02.2013. Shri Om Namdeo, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for direction to respondent no.5/Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Seoni (Appellate Authority of Gram Sabha) to decide the appeal bearing No.01, filed by petitioner in the name of Ramkishore Baghel and others versus Pradhan, Gram Sabha, Pusera and others pending from 8.4.11 in which from 15.11.11 no proceedings have taken place. Since the appeal is old one, it is directed that respondent no.5/ Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Seoni shall make all endeavour to decide the aforesaid appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to inform the concerned respondent by filing certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid direct...
Gulab Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No ::2997. / 2013 Smt. Gulab Bai versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 27.02.2013. Shri Yogendra Patel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order-dated 16.1.2012 Annexure P/2, petitioner has a remedy of filing a writ petition before the Board of Revenue. But, it seems that the petitioner could not file the revision within the statutory period of limitation and, therefore, has approached this Court. Petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community and keeping in view the rights of the petitioner, interest of justice requires that he should be granted permission to file the revision and the delay in filing the same should be condoned. In view of the above, it is directed that in case petitioner files an application before the Board of Revenue against the order in question, within a period of 15 days from today, the Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the revision of the peti...
Laxman Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C. No.1036/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, G.A. for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.372/2012 registered at Police Station Amlai District Shahdol for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 120B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Phoolbai is the married wife of the present applicant. They are living happily. They have a female child. However, father of Phoolbai was not agree with their marriage, therefore, he lodged a false report against the applicant. It is further submitted that Phoolbai and applicant has also filed a writ petition before the High Court in regard to pr...
Muneem Singh Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.21723/2012 27.02.2013 Mr.R.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.5.1998 issued by Janpad Panchayat, Saikheda for recruitment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, the petitioner has participated in the process of selection. By order dated 27.8.1997, the petitioner was appointed for the academic session 1997-98. The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 27.8.1997 contains a stipulation that in case selected person fails to report his joining by 8.8.1997, the appointment shall be deemed to have been cancelled. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid order submitted his joining. The pet...
Shiv Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1352/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Rakesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.340/2012 registered at P.S.Suatla, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. None has stated against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that main witnesses of the case are yet to be examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the case diary. Main witnesses of the case are yet...
Badri Prasad Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Criminal Revision No.182/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by counsel for the applicant, the matter is heard finally. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore in criminal case no.1828/09 and sentenced for four months S.I.with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal no.291/2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore vide judgment dated 16.1.2013 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below, the present revision is preferred. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 12.10.2009 at about 2:00 a.m.in the night, the applicant assaulted his brother Gopal Singh by a stick at village Lasudiya Dhakad, Police Station Mandi, District Sehore because of dispute of land. An FIR was lodged and the victim was sent to the hospital f...
A.R. Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1255/2013(S) 27.02.2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Issue notice of this writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2012, wherein a direction to make recovery of alleged excess amount is issued. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted on a Gazetted post and since the promotion order nowhere contemplates a condition of obtaining a training, for the purposes of grant of pay scale on the promotional post and since an exemption was already granted by the General Administration Department in respect of those employees who have completed 45 years of age, the condition prescribed in the Non-Gazetted Rules could not have been made applicable against the petitioner and he cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »