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.
Shiv Charan Lal Sharma Vs. Kailash Prasad Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.13826/2012 M.Cr.C.No.13826/2012 27.02.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondent. Present petition has been preferred seeking relief of quashment of criminal proceedings pending in the court of C.J.M, Dindori in Criminal Case No.1176/2012 under section 500 IPC on the basis of complaint made by the respondent. Relevant facts in short are that on 14/03/2008, Principal, Government Higher Secondary School made communication to the Principal, Government School of Excellance, Dindori (Annexure P-5) informing that on 08/03/2008 at about 5.30 pm, respondent, who was working as a teacher in Government School of Excellance, Dindori hurled abuses. Aforesaid complaint of the petitioner was processed and was found to be false during in-house inquiry proceedings. Such complaint was found false by District Education Officer Dindori also and as expressed by him in his report dated 28/04/2010 on it In a repeat inquiry on 26/06/2010 also sa...
Kishan Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
-1- W.A.No.265/2009 27/2/2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents Nos.4 and 5. With consent of respective counsel, heard finally. This Intra-Court Appeal Under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 10/2/2009 passed in W.P.No.17670/2006(S) (Kishan Kumar & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.passed by learned single Judge; whereby, the challenge to the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by Collector, Sagar and order dated 21.11.2006 passed by Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Khurai, cancelling the appellants' order dated 29.7.2006 has been negatived. Appointed in the council in different Class IV categories in grade Rs.2550-3200 in pursuance to advertisement dated 18.5.2006, petitioneRs.appointment came under cloud on allegation of large scale irregularities in selection, t...
Suresh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
CRR No.180/2013 Criminal Revision No.180/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is hearing finally. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC vide judgment dated 13.8.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Nainpur, District Mandla (Shri Hemraj Sanodiya) in criminal case No.299/2011 and sentenced for 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.91/2012 vide judgment dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 10.8.2011, at about 9 a.m.in the morning, the prosecutrix was coming back after answering the call of nature, at village Kheri, Police Sta...
Dr.V.K.Sahasrabudhe Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.12528/2009 27.2.2013 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. The only controveRs.involved in the writ petition is whether the respondent no.1 is liable to pay the benefit of two increments of pay to the petitioner on account of obtaining the Ph.D.Degree w.e.f.27.7.1998. The benefit of leave encashment was also required to be adjudicated. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.1 though is making payment of pension but is disputing the liability to pay the aforesaid claims of the petitioner. The orders have been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of such claims from the respondent no.1. It is fairly stated by Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that in a meeting held on 3.4.2010, the issue was already discussed and it was decided that th...
Smt. Monica Sahagal Vs. Smt. Binu Dhir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :9229. / 2012 Smt. Monica Sahagal versus Smt. Binu Dhir and others 27.02.2013. Shri Ashish Shroti for the petitioner. Shri Avinash Zargar for respondent No.1. Shri Vivek Agrawal and Shri Vivekanand Awasthy for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order-dated 24.2.2012 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.42-A/2005, by which an application filed by the petitioner for taking on record certain documents have been rejected. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through the documents and the material available on record and tried to emphasize that the documents are filed by the petitioner, which are relevant for the decision of the suit and as some documents are already available by way of photocopy, the order passed by the court below rejecting the application is unsustainable. Respondents refuted the aforesaid. Shri Avinash Zargar,...
Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vs. General Manager (i.R.)w.C.F.Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.12562/2006 Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vs. General Manager (I.R.), Western Coal Field Limited. Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Samaiya, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Anoop Nair, Advocate. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe ORDER (26.02.2013) In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in written examination as well as in the interview for recruitment on the post of Mining Sirdar. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to debar the respondents No.3 to 5 from appearing in the written examination for recruitment to the post of Mining Sirdar and in case of their appointment on the said post, to quash their appointment.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated are that an advertisement was published in 'Rojgar Samachar', in December 2005, by which applications were invited for appointm...
Smt. Sushila Solanki Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.18940/12 27.2.13. Shri Rajendra Pandey, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate for State. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, while submitting photo copy of an order passed in WP No.9126/10 (Smt. Kamal Kanti Dubey versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 9th March,11 by a single Bench of this Court, submitted that present petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the aforesaid writ petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner opposed the prayer and submitted that the controveRs.involved in the present matter is different. He prays for some time to file rejoinder. In the interest of justice time is granted to learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week. Matter be listed in week commencing from 11.03.13. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Niranjan Kumar JaIn Vs. Ghanshyam Das Kankane
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :10682. / 2012 Niranjan Kumar Jain versus Ghanshyam Das Kankane and others 27.02.2013. Shri Nilesh Kotecha for the petitioner. Challenging an order-dated 7.5.2012 passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge Class I, Katni in Civil Suit No.87-A/2011, dismissing an application Annexure P/3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent No.1 has filed the suit in question against respondent Nos.2 to 4, with regard to the property in question and it is seen that respondents 1 to 4 are members of the same family and a dispute with regard to the property and the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in demolishing a part of the suit property is pending consideration in the suit in question and the dispute between the respondents is based on the Law of Succession. Petitioner is only a tenant in the suit property and his application for being impleaded as a party is rejected by the court below by indicating that the ...
Motilal Vs. Keshaw Prasad Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.11706 / 2012 Motilal versus Keshav Prasad Gupta and others 27.02.2013. Shri D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the courts below in the matter of granting injunction in a proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, this writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner. Petitioner has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction and in the said suit an application for temporary injunction was granted by the trial court. However, on an appeal being filed, the appellate court found that the suit property is the joint family property and, therefore, injunction in such a matter against a co-owner cannot be granted. Taking note of the law laid down in the case of Chander Singh versus Bapu Ji, 1978 (2) MPWN 68 injunction is rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the findings recorded by the appellate court, it is seen that the plaintiff himself in the suit seeks an alternate prayer of partit...
Rammilan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
CRR No.177/2013 Criminal Revision No.177/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is hearing finally. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC vide judgment dated 14.5.2012 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Dindori (Shri Surendra Meshram) in criminal case No.965/2009 and sentenced for four months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.42/2012 vide judgment dated 24.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 22.7.2005, at about 10 a.m., the prosecutrix was coming back after taking bath in a river, at village Khargahna, Police Stati...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »