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.
indradeo Singh Vs. Mst. Abhiraju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Indradeo Singh versus Mst. Abhiraju & Others Writ Petition No.2365 27. 2.2013: Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 17.1.2013 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II Singrauli in Civil Suit No.36-A/2006 by which prayer made by the petitioner in an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC for deciding issue No.7 & 8 has been rejected, this writ petition has been filed. It has been held by the court below in the aforesaid order that the question with regard to decision of these two issues are mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be decided without recording of evidence, and held that matter shall be considered after evidence is recorded, application is dismissed. Rejection of application for the reasons as indicated hereinabove by the Court and the discretion exercised by the court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that ...
Bhagwat Singh Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2877/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Vinayak Prasad Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioner therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal file...
Smt. Rajkumari Kushwaha Vs. Shravan Kumar Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Cr.R.No.2239/2012 27.2.2013 Shri B.K.Singh counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.6/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the revision against the judgment dated 22.9.2012 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.43/2012 whereby the appeal of the applicant was dismissed being not maintainable. Facts of the case in short are that, a prosecution was initiated against the respondents no.1 to 5 before the trial Court i.e JMFC, Rewa in Criminal Case No.696/2006 for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and the trial Court vide judgment dated 27.12.2011 acquitted the respondents no.1 to 5 and thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court which was transferred to VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. Learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa has held that the appeal was not maintainable under section 372 of Cr.P.C because ...
Satyanarayan Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2984/20127. 02.2013 Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.The only grievance of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as work-charged contingency employees and were later on regularized. However, the period of only regular employment is counted for the purpose of fixation of their pension and the benefit of contingency services rendered by them have not been counted for the purpose of fixation of pension. This being so, the representations were made but since nothing has been done, the petitioners are required to approach this Court by way of filing of this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the case of Mamta Shukla versus State of M.P.and otheRs.[2011 (3) MPLJ 210 ., wherein the Full Bench of this Court has considered the aspect of giving benefit of provisions of the relevant rules under which a contingency employee is recruited. It is considered by the Full Bench of this Court that ...
Bhagwati Bai @ Choti Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.673/2013 27/02/2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Naresh Sharma with Shri Z.M.Shah, Advocates for the Objector. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. At the outset, learned counsel for applicants prays for withdrawal of application in respect of applicant Hakam Singh. Prayer allowed. The application in respect of applicant Hakam Singh is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally on behalf of applicant Bhagwati Bai. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 10/12/12 in connection with Crime No.509/12 registered at P.S.Bareli, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in-law of deceased Seema. It is further submitted that she is suffering from the ...
Deepak Kol Vs. Shri D.C. Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Contempt Case No.1485/2012 27.2.2013 Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. By filing the response, it is stated by the respondents that they have taken decision in terms of order dated 15.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.13767/2006 and have considered the claim of the petitioner and his mother both for grant of compassionate appointment. It is further stated that vide order dated 15.2.2013, the petitioner has been informed that because of the policy in vogue, the petitioner and the mother of the petitioner both are not found fit eligible for grant of compassionate appointment therefore, claims are rejected. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions has specifically directed the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner and his mother both expeditiously. The respondents were also directed to consider the claim of payment of monetary compensation. Since according to such a decision not the petitioner...
Purushottam Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.5868/2011 27.02.2013 Mr.N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is senior citizen and the matter pertains to claim of the petitioner for general Provident Fund. However, in the interest of justice, four weeks' further time is granted to file the return. It is made clear that in case, the return is not filed by the next date of hearing, this Court may consider directing for personal appearance of Officer In-charge of the case. Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC....
Rajendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1273/2013 27.2.2013 Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.1.2013 and the applicants did not misuse the liberty granted to them. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the application. Since applicants have already been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that they misused the liberty granted to them, order dated 29.1.2013 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court, in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Tarachand Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1257/2013(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...
Halkeveer Lodhi Vs. Bhole Ram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Cr.R.No.1250/2001 27.2.2013 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Respondent no.1 is not present. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2/State. A report has been received on the warrant issued against the respondent no.1 that due to mental disturbance, he left his house and he is residing in the forest and his address is not known to anybody. Under such circumstances, it would be proper to consider the present matter in the absence of the respondent no.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent no.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 334 of I.P.C and sentenced for the period which he has already undergone in custody vide judgment dated 22.10.2001 in Criminal Case No.360/2000 by the learned JMFC, Udyapura, District Raisen. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Udyapura the applicant has preferred the present revision. The facts of the case are that on 27.2.2000 the complainant/victim Halke Veer had lodged...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »