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.
Tulsiram Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.142 o01. 02.2013 Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant accused has filed this revision being aggrieve by the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, in S.T.No.590/2012, whereby charges for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC were framed against the applicant. The applicant's counsel after taking me though the papers placed on record including the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the prosecutrix argued that at the initial stage the prosecutrix had given a report in writing to the Police on 31.8.2012 (A-2).on which Crime No.231/12 was registered against the applicant at P.S.Jaisinagar, district Sagar for the offence of Section 341, 354 and 323 of IPC. In investigation more than one statements of the prosecutrix were recorded. On the basis of last interrogatory statements of the prosecutrix, (Ann. A-...
R.K.Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No. 1574 Of 2013 1.2.2013 Shri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, an Executive Engineer, Bhopal Development Authority assails the order dated 19.6.2012; whereby, he has been informed that he will retire w.e.f. 31.1.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 yeaRs.Taking shelter of Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Seva (Adhivarshki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2011 petitioner claims that he has an entitlement to retire at the age of 62 years as enhanced by said Adhiniyam. When called upon to demonstrate as to how he is entitled for extended age of retirement, petitioner fails to do so. F.R 56 (i) (1) inserted vide above amendment clearly stipulates: (1) Subject to the provisions of subrule (2). every Government Servant other than a Government Servant mentioned in subrules (1a), (1b), (1c), (1d), (1e), (1f), (1g), (1h), (1i) and (1j), shall retire...
Solu Raja @ Vitur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1525/2002 1.2.2013 Today the case is listed for clarification/correction of the sessions trial number in which the appellants were prosecuted and ultimately convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 30.9.2002. The judgment reveals that the number of sessions trial was 15/2001 but in the memo of appeal filed by the appellants, the number of sessions trial is wrongly typed as 15/2002. In the result despite there being direction for the release of appellant no.1 Akhilesh on bail vide order dated 13.12.2012 the jail authorities could not release him from jail. We accordingly clarify that Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 30.9.2002 had convicted the appellants in Sessions Trial No.15/2001. and No.15/2002. as wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal. The number of Sessions Trial mentioned as 15/2002. in the memo of appeal is corrected by us in the interest of justice as 15/2001. A copy of the bail order dated 13.12.2012 with co...
Smt. Nazma Begum Vs. Shri Neeraj Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1...Con.C.No.1639 of 2010 Smt. Nazma Begum Neeraj Dubey 01.02.2013 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Counsel for the respondent. This petition is directed alleging disobedience of order dated 28.1.2010 passed in W.P.130 of 2010 by which this Court finally disposed of the matter with a direction which reads thus :- In view of the stand taken on behalf of the respondent/State and also looking to the facts of the case, we dispose of this petition at this stage, without expressing any opinion regarding the allegations made in the writ petition with the direction to the Collector, Shahdol to examine the allegations made in the complaint dated 21.12.2009 against respondents No.4 to 7 either himself or through the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahdol, and after necessary enquiry and opportunity of hearing and show cause to the said respondents and other necessary party, take final decision in accordance with law expeditiously. With the above order, this petition s...
Kallu @ Harisingh Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.138 o01. 2.2013 Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for respondent-State. Let the records of both the courts below be requisitioned within a month and case be listed thereafter for admission. Heard on IA No.2053/13, applicant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted under Section 509 of IPC for RI six months with fine of Rs.500/- and since the date of the impugned judgment of the trial court, i.e.19.1.2003 he is facing the awarded jail sentence. Considering the circumstances as appeared from the impugned judgement, so also taking into consideration the aforesaid period of custody suffered by the applicant in jail during the trial and subsequent to appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, the remaining jail sentence of the applicant is hereby suspended. It is further directed that o...
M/S S.K. JaIn Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No.21828/2012 1.2.2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is a contractor and claims himself to have been carrying out various Central and State Governments projects particularly regarding upgradation and construction of roads. Respondent Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (in short, the Authority.) is an agency of the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Road Development Department. The petitioner entered into number of agreements with the Authority for construction of various roads vides different packages under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana. For each package separate independent contract was entered into between them having no inter-se relation with the contracts of other packages. The main grievance of petitioner is that the Authority vide order dated 23.7.2012, Annexure P1, has illegally withheld the payment of amount of contract due to the termination of contract of ...
Krishn Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No.19231/2012 1.2.2013 Shri Amitabha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner is inter alia alleging that there is a deliberate change in the revenue record pertaining to KhaSr.No.457 of the village Orchha,, Tahsil Orchha, District Tikamgarh from Abadi to Chaaturbhuj without following due process of law. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the show cause notices issued to the occupants of land under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. According to the petitioner the revenue authorities have clandestinely destroyed the relevant pages of the field book containing entries from 1978-79 to 1982-83 and, therefore, when the copy of the KhaSr.No.457 was obtained in the year 2012 for the years ranging from 1978-1988 a remark was found to be written to the effect that the pages of the aforesaid years are torn off. This allegation, ...
Shyamlal Napit Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
WP 11842.09 Writ Petition No.11842 of 2009 (Shyamlal Napit and another v. The State of M.P.and four otheRs.01-02-2013 Shri R.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Initially appointed in not government grant in aid school as Peons in 1979 and 1976 respectively, petitioners were absorbed as Peon respectively, on the school in which they were employed, was taken over by the State Government. The absorption gave rise to the grievance regarding fixation of pay which as per the petitioners ought to be on the higher side at par with what they were drawing when working in non-government grant in aid school. It is the contention of the petitioneRs.that the issue is no longer res-integra and has been settled at rest by judgment in N.K.Rai and others V. State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.W.P.No.6850/2000 and bunch of cases decided on 28.1.2004 whereagaint Civil Appeal No.7618/2009 and other connected Writ Appeals preferred by the Sta...
Mohd. Nasir Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.117/2013 01.2.2013 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for respondent-State. Let the records of both the courts below be requisitioned positively within three weeks and case be listed immediately thereafter for admission. Also heard on IA No.1814/13, applicant's application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been concurrently convicted by the court below under Section 332 of IPC and in such premises initially he was sentenced for one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- by the trial court. On appeal his jail sentence has been reduced from one year to six months and since the date of the impugned judgment, i.e.18.1.2013, he is facing the jail sentence. Having heard, after perusing the impugned judgment available on record, in the available circumstances and also keeping in view that during trial and appeal the applicant was remained on bail, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, th...
Raghunath Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.1146/2013 01.02.2013 Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner who is working on the post of Dozer Operator Grade II has filed this petition claiming proper fixation of pay and similar relief that has been given to one Chhotelal Jaiswal pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14722/2003 decided on 21.05.2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 17.10.2012, filed by the petitioner claiming similar benefit, be directed to be considered and decided by the respondent authorities and the petition be disposed of accordingly. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that in case such representation is filed the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authoriti...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »