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.
Chhotebeer Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.2479/2013. 27.02.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, Adv.For the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, G.A appears for State and accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1,2 and 5. Heard on the point of admission. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred in order to quash the proceedings which are pending before Special Judge in connection with Crime No.83/10 registered at PS Bamhori district Raisen for the offence u/s 363, 366, 376/34 and 120 B of IPC and also u/s 3(1)(xii )and 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also violation of provisions of (K) of sub section (1) of section 39 of M.P.Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, as the petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kartoli Janpad Panchayat Silwani District Raisen he apprehends that due to such registration of the Criminal charges against him he may be removed from post of Sarpanch for which this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for th...
Shri Santosh Jharia Vs. Wakf Khankah Nijamiya Aagha Chowk, Ranital Jab ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
C.R.No.99/2013 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava C.R.No.99/2013 APPLICANT SHRI SANTOSH JHARIA s/o SHRI H.S.JHARIA R/o H.NO.A/118, KASTURBA WARD (PURANA GARHAPHATAK WARD H.NO.90) AAGHA CHOWK KARBALA ROAD RANITAL JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR JABALPUR- Versus RESPONDENTS 1 WAKF KHANKAH NIJAMIA AGA CHOWK, RANITAL, JABALPUR THROUGH ITS MUTAWALLI SAYYED LIYAKAT ALI, S/o SAYYAD KHURSHEED ALI, R/O 263/01, NAYA MOHALLA, JAIPRAKASH NARAYAN WARD, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2. M.P.WAKF BOARD, BHOPAL THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEAR TAJUL MASJID, BHOPAL, DISTRICT M.P.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate Respondent No.1 by Shri A.M.Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri Ritesh Sharma, Advocate Respondent No.2 by- Shri Saleem Rahman, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER {2702-2013} For the reasons st...
Smt. Kusum Shrivastava Vs. the Accountant General
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2807/20127. 02.2013 Shri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The grievance set forth by the petitioner is that the amount credited in the provident fund account of the late husband of the petitioner, who was serving in the Department of Education, has not been finally sanctioned and disbursed. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner was having Provident Fund Account not ED/46051 Fund-39 in which certain amounts were credited but even after a long time, final amount has not been paid to the petitioner. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the representations were made, legal notice was issued but nothing has been done by the competent authority of the Accountant General, Gwalior. In view of the aforesaid, since the claims of the petitioner have not yet been finally decided, it would be appropriate to direct the competent authority of Accountant General, Gwalior to look into the claim of the ...
Smt. Shyama Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No ::3059. / 2013 Smt. Shyama Bai and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 27.02.2013. Shri L.N.Sakle for the petitioneRs.Grievance of the petitioners seem to be with regard to action of respondent No.4, in the matter of putting pressure on the petitioners and the act of the petitioners in withdrawing a complaint made by them against one Dr. R.K.Gupta. Taking note of the complaint by the petitioneRs.it is thought appropriate to direct respondent No.2 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chhindwara to look into the grievance of the petitioners and issue necessary instructions to the Officer concerned in the matter, as may be permissible under law. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules today. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt.Chitra Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :12393. / 2012 Smt. Chitra versus Anil Kumar and others 27.02.2013. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Lalwani for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent No.9. Challenging an order-dated 17.7.2012 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class II, Mandla in Civil Suit No.49-A/2012, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 5/15 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Order 32 Rule 5/15 CPC interalia contending that due to petitioners incapacity, her power of attorney holder and son Shailendra be appointed as her next friend and guardian and as this application has been rejected by the court below, the writ petition is filed. The suit in question has been filed and is pending in the court concerned. Petitioner is plaintiff and it is stated that initially an application was filed for the s...
Smt. Basundhara Vs. Arvind Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.2171/2012 Smt. Basundhara Vs. Arvind Yadav and others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Pankaj Yadav, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Tamrkar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.4/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 27th day of February, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the judgment dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in criminal appeal no.138/2011, whereby the judgment dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Orchha, District Tikamgarh in criminal ca...
Smt. Janki Bai Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
---1--- W.P.No.7286/2009 27.2.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. By consent heard finally. By order dated 13.04.2010 in W.P.No.1072/1997 learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the dispute is between the Gram Panchayat and another local authority, which has been entrusted with the administration and management of the fund and the property of the Maa Sharda Devi Mandir, and Respondent No.5 Shri Sharda Prabandhak Samiti is not permitting the Gram Panchayat to perform its duty. The learned Single Judge referred the dispute for adjudication by the State Government under Section 90 of the Adhiniyam 1993. In view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to refer the present dispute to the same authority. The petitioner may file appropriate proceedings before the State Government for adjudication. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order ...
Mata Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2938/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P.(s) No.5066/2007 (Brajesh Kumar Tiwari versus C.E.O.Zila Panchayat Shivpuri and others).In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(s) No.5066/2007. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj....
Harishankar Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2967/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance copy. It is contended that the controveRs.involved in the present petition with respect to grant of appropriate pay scale after grant of Kramonnati has been put at rest by this Court in W.P.No.21288/2012 (S).Santosh Kumar Pandey and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 21.12.2012. It is contended that since the order was also issued in the similar manner in respect of petitioner while granting him the Kramonnati, the error was committed in giving the pay scale, the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same manner. Learned Government Advocate has no objection in deciding the writ petition, in case it is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner in terms of the order passed in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey (supra).This Court while considering the controveRs.has passed the order in t...
Nemi Kishor Verbe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1684/2013(S) 27.02.2013 Shri Aniruddh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The only claim made by the petitioner is that he has continuously worked on the post of Librarian, but he was not granted the benefit of second Kramonnati in terms of the Scheme made by the State Government. The case of the petitioner was duly forwarded vide memo dated 24.12.2011 by the Principal of the Institution where the petitioner was working, still the action is not taken by the respondents to consider the same, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. If a claim is made and the same is forwarded to the competent authority, it is the responsibility of the authorities to take a final decision on the same. The petitioner has retired on 31.3.2012 and, therefore, it would be necessary on the part of respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 to look into the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders if the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »