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.
Hari Prasad Upadhyaya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 4680 Of 2007 (S) 1.2.2013 Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Heard. Quashment of order dated 25.11.2006 (though in paragraph 7 erroneously mentioned as 26.8.2006) is being sought for vide this writ petition. By impugned order it is held that the petitioners who passed Hindi Typing Examination on 22.6.1975 and 21.3.1976 respectively were not entitled for two advance increments. Initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 30th January 1973 with a condition stipulated therein that within three months they will have to pass Hindi Typing Examination with a speed of 30 w.p.m failing which their services would be terminated. Petitioners were granted two advance increments from the date of passing of Hindi Typing Examination by order dated 5.1.1976 and 10.9.1976 respectively. Subsequently,...
Ravi @ Bunty Balmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.124/2013 01.2.2013 Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. Learned PL has taken notice of this admission as well as IA No.1869/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. Let the records of both the courts below be requisitioned positively within one month and case be listed for final hearing in due course. Also heard on IA No.1869/13, an application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. He was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 327 of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs.500/-. But Appellate Court by maintaining his conviction under such Section has reduced the awarded jail sentence from one year to six months by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.500 to Rs.1000 and since the date of the impugned judgment, i.e.18.1.2013 the applicant is facing the awarded jail sentenc...
R.C.Dubey Vs. M.P.State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.12152/2007 (s) 01.02.2013 Shri S. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Being denied the benefit of Second Higher Pay Scale, petitioner a Junior Engineer has filed this petition. Undisputed facts are that initially, appointed as Junior Engineer (Diploma Training) on 23.4.1981, petitioner was regularized as Junior Engineer w.e.f.23.10.1983. That, the petitioner was granted the benefit of FiRs.Higher Pay Scale by order dated 23.8.1990. This was in consonance with the policy of upgradation introduced by respondents to overcome stagnation in service whereunder two upgradation were permitted on completion of 9/18/25 years of service. However, when the petitioner became entitled for Second Higher Pay Scale the same was not granted because of criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act by Lokayukt, which led to his suspension also. The petitioner was cleared of the criminal...
Smt. Radha Bai Vs. Smt. Anita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No :1487. / 2013 Smt. Radha Bai versus Smt. Anita 01.02.2013. Shri S.B.Shrivastava for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order-dated 10.1.2013 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, closing the right of the petitioner to file written statement. Respondent Smt. Anita is a widow and has filed the suit in question for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In the said proceedings, as the petitioner did not file written statement in accordance to the requirement of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the right to file written statement has been closed. It was the case of the petitioner that as she had sought for certain documents and as the documents were not available, she could not file the written statement in time. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he shall file the written statement within the period as may be fixed by this Court and, therefore, he may be granted liberty to f...
Munni Kushwaha Vs. Pyarelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No :358. / 2013 Munni Kushwaha and another versus Pyarelal and State of MP 01.02.2013. Smt. Jamna Yadav for the petitioneRs.Against the order impugned passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Amanganj, District Panna, directing for correction of the revenue records, petitioners have remedy of filing fiRs.appeal, second appeal and revision under section 44 and 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code. Therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy as is available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned back to the petitioneRs.on their filing a photocopy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Santosh Vs. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Review Petition No.556/2011 1.2.2013 Shri Surendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Patel, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Heard. This review petition is directed against the order dated 15.9.2011 passed in W.P. No. 14653/2011; whereby, the petition directed against the order dated 3.8.2002 passed by Labour Court directing for reinstatement of review petitioner (respondent No. 1 in writ petition) was allowed in following terMs.In the case at hand the dispute having been raised after a period of 10 years from 1989when the service of petitioner was dispensed, the Labour Court erred in directing reinstatement after over 20 years from 1989. Instead, in our considered opinion, the ends of justice would have met if instead of reinstatement compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh) could have been awarded. We, therefore, modify the award. While upholding the finding arrived at by the Labour...
Suraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.A.No.1486 o01. 02.13 Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for respondent/State. Heard on IA No.1642/13 which is the forth repeat application on behalf of appellant No.2 for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail. His earlier fiRs.application in this regard has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.09 while his subsequent second application was dismissed for want of prosecution but his third application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.8.2010 and thereafter this forth application has been preferred. Appellant No.2 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 392/34 of the IPC for RI 1.years with fine of Rs.5000/-. His earlier application for suspension of the remaining jail sentence was dismissed on merits taking into consideration that he has also been involved in other three identical cases. Subsequent to such earlier dismissal on merits, I have not found any material change in the circu...
Pancham Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.79 o01. 02.13 Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondents/state. Having heard on IA No.1078/13 applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing the revision, after perusing the copy of the order dated 17.12.12 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Cr.R.No.2029/12 filed by the co-accused of the instant case in which the application of the concerning co-accused for condoning the delay of 342 days was allowed and the delay was condoned as also the order dated 21.9.12 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Cr.R.No.1694/12 filed by the co-accused of the instant case whereby the concerning applicants have been discharged from the alleged charges and, for the reasons stated in the IA, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out the sufficient cause for condoning the delay of one year two months and eight days in filing this revision. Consequently, the IA is allowed and the alleged delay is hereby condoned. T...
Ku.Tilak Ahirwar Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
WP No.915/13 1.2.13. Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 3. Shri Ruprah prays short time to apprise this Court in respect of stand of respondent No.1 and 3 in the present case. Prayer is allowed. Ad-interim writ It is stated by the petitioner that the supplementary examination for fiRs.semester is scheduled from 5 th February, 2013 and appropriate directions may be issued in the matter. Shri Ruprah submits that petitioner may appear in the examination so that she may not lose her one year. In view of aforesaid, we permit the petitioner to appear in the ensuing supplementary examination which shall be subject to decision/further orders of this writ petition. Be listed for hearing on 12th of February, 2013. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Judge. Jk....
Mulai Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.132 o01. 2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for respondent-State. Let the records of both the courts below be requisitioned within three weeks and the case be listed immediately thereafter for admission. Also heard on IA No.2008/13, applicants' application for suspension of their remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as after affirming their jail sentence by the appellate court each of them has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs.500 in the fiRs.count while RI four months and since the date of the impugned judgment, i.e.15.1.2013 they are facing the awarded jail sentence. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the impugned judgment in the facts and circumstance so also keeping in view the nature of the offence and the period suffered by the applicants in jail, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matte...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »