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.
Narendra Parmar Vs. Mahesh Khati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 01/2/2013 M/s Anugrah Bharti, for the petitioners Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 4.8.11 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, affirming the order dated 10.3.11 passed by the JMFC taking cognizance in the matter against the petitioner. Let notice of this petition be issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. List the matter for further consideration after two weeks. In the meantime case diary be also called for. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Rishi Prasad Nayak Vs. Rani Durga Wati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
W.P.No.18994/2012 01.02.2013 Shri Brajesh Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent No.1. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "a. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner is running pillar to post for his result and he has further deposited examination fee Rs.500/- to appear in the ATKT examination; as the respondent-University has been harassing him, therefore, the petitioner also begs Rs.5 Lac as compensation to teach University a lesson to prevent committing injustice towards petitioner as well as others.b.This Court may also be pleased to issue any order/direction as it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice."The case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-3 petitioner applied for revaluation and retotaling of the subject namely Computer Application Group-II Paper but till date the revaluation has not been carried out. Though after retotaling a communic...
Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. Narayan Das Panika
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
CONC. No.2110/2012 01.02.2013 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. This petition is directed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent alleging that the respondent is misusing the order passed by this Court dated 22.02.2012 in W.P.No.2548/2012 (PIL).It is further submitted that the respondent who was petitioner before this Court, had approached to the Collector, Singrauli with an application Annexure C-2 and insisted for registration of the criminal case against the petitioner and the Collector has directed to take immediate action in this regard and the apprehension of the petitioner is that a criminal case may be registered against the petitioner. This Court while disposing of the petition has directed thus:- "In view whereof, we think it appropriate that the petitioner should fiRs.avail remedy either under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or the Adhiniyam, 1993, as the petitioner therein would be able to lead evidence to establish alleged mal-practice misa...
Dr. Shanti Bansal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.7708/2012 1.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Gupta, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.AG for respondents No.2 and 5. Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioners are directed to serve copy of petition to the standing counsel for respondent No.3, if already not served, within three working days and to file acknowledgement in the office. On filing such acknowledgement in the office, office to reflect name of the counsel in the cause list on the next date of hearing. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.AG prays two weeks time to file reply. While seeking instructions from the respondents, Shri Jain shall specifically draw attention of the Secretary, Medical Education in respect of the shortcomings of S.S.Medical College, Rewa and shall also ask him to make necessary arrangement for making out those deficiencies good within a time bound programme. I.A.No.14657/2012 for hearing of this petition alongwith W.P.No.8883/09 P...
Rahul Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 01/2/2013 Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Cokunselwith Shri counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.45/12 at Police Kotwali, Hoshangabad and subsequent trial, based under Section 498-A of IPC, on the basis of report of respondent No.2. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent No.2 by RAD. Steps within two working days. Notice be made returnable within one week. List the matter in the week commencing from 18/2/13. In the meantime, learned Government Advocate shall ensure the availability of the case diary. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Girish Kumar Site Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.757/2013 W.P.No.757/2013 01.02.2013 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f 1999 as has been held in case of Smt Prerna Korane w/o Shri Pramod Koranne v. State of M.P.and otheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26.4.07. In view of nature of relief as has been sought for by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for benefit of second kramonnati in furtherance to order passed in Smt. Prerna (supra) and settle the claim within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioner is not found eligible, respondents are directed to pass a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms . No costs. Certified copy as...
Rajendra Prasad Kansare Vs. Heera Vaidya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
S.A.No.109/2013 (Rajendra Prasad Kansare versus Heera Vaidya and otheRs.01.02.2013 Heard Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.4-A/12 by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Balaghat affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.20-A/08 by 4th Civil Judge, Class-2, Balaghat. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of 0.30 decimal land adjacent to the P.W.D.Road on which one Shankar Lal Kansare had initially started a hotel in the name of Surahi Dhaba which, it was alleged, is not being run by the appellant/plaintiff, who is the nephew of Shankar Lal Kansare. A notice had been issued to him in respect of the aforesaid hotel situated on 0.04 decimal on KhaSr.No.153/2A the total area of which i...
Valli Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W. P.No.1341/2013 W.P.No.1341/2013 01.02.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent on advance notice.The petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to respondent to grant pension under M.P.(Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. Having been engaged on daily wages on 01.01.1950 in Public Works Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, petitioner was regularized by order dated 13.7.1998 w.e.f.1.1.1996 in grade Rs.825-1220/-. After rendering 5 years 4 months and 30 days of service in the Regular Establishment petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.31.05.2001. Petitioner thereafter, approached authorities concerned for grant of pension, however, no head was paid. In the meantime, decision came to be rendered 2 W. P.No.1341/2013 by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.216/2006 dated 27.02.2008 (State of M.P.v. Smt. Kamla Bai).whereby the per...
Suraj Kastwar Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
WP No.1734/13 1.2.13. Shri Satyam Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent. Shri Agarwal, at the outset, submits that yesterday results of all the petitioners were declared by the respondent, so this petition has rendered infructuous and he be permitted to withdraw it. Prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, as the results of petitioners have been declared after filing of this petition for the examination which was conducted by the respondent in the month of September,2012, and for this purpose, the petitioners were burdened with the cost of litigation and also other expenses, Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate General comes forward and makes a statement on behalf of the University that all the petitioners shall be compensated towards the litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-each by the University within a period of one month from today. In view of aforesaid, no order is being passed...
Dwarka Prasad Yadav Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.1394/2010(s) 14.02.2013 Ms.Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt.Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioner, Head Constable , Special Armed Force, posted in 6th Battalion, vide present writ petition seeks direction to consider him for out of turn promotion in terms of the provisions of Rule 56(3) of the M.P.Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973. Claim for out of turn promotion is mounted on the incident which took place on 21.4.1999 while the petitioner was on duty as Security guard Member of Legislative Assembly Shri Harnam Singh Rathore , when certain miscreants assailed the member and in alleged self defence petitioner opened fire with his fire arm resulting in death of one miscreant. The claim has been denied by the respondent on the ground that the incident has resulted in registration of an offence against the petitioner under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and though a Khatma report has been furnished , the Judicial Magistrate FiRs...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »