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.
Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1717/2013(S) 27.02.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 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.Notices be made returnable in four weeks. It is contended that on no fault of petitioneRs.a threat is given to reduce the pay scale of the petitioner though it has been granted in terms of the Scheme and the Rules after due approval. Looking to the aforesaid, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuance to memo dated 2.1.2013 Annx.P/13, till further consideration of this interim prayer. List immediately after four weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj. 2 Writ Petition No.1717/2013(S)...
Kunjilal UmareThe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Kunjilal Umarethe versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2969 27. 2.2013: Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is employee working presently in the Education Department, initially petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 under the Tribal Welfare Department from where his services were transferred to the present department on 7.8.2003. It seems that the service book of petitioner has been misplaced and, therefore, a duplicate service book has been prepared. Thereafter it has been forwarded to the office of respondent No.2 for authentication and certification, but as no action is being taken, duplicate service book has not been prepared, as a result service book of petitioner with regard to pay-fixation and other monetary claim are not being considered including his claim for grant of seniority and promotion. Interalia contending that respondents be directed to take steps for certification and preparation of duplicate service book according to require...
Jaan Mohammed Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1149/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.231/2012 registered at P.S.Amiliya, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. It is alleged that a forged death certificate of deceased Chandrakali has been prepared by co-accused wherein the applicant was attesting witness. Nothing is required to be seized from his possession. The applicant has no criminal past. He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned c...
Gram Jpanchayat Chourahi Vs. Anil Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.156/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5. None for respondents No.6, 7 and 8. With consent the appeal is heard finally. This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of The M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, at the instance of Gram Panchayat Chourahi is directed against order dated 29.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.3441/2010 (s) whereby while relying on the decision in Lalla Prasad Burman v. State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.2008 (3) MPLJ 39 and Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhargura Khurd v. Santosh Singh & ORS.2010 (4) 2 MPLJ 41 and by setting aside the order of removal dated 25.04.2009 passed by Gram Panchayat against respondent No.1, Panchayat Karmi, which was as per stipulation in Panchayat Karmi Yojna brought in vogue b...
Smt. Malti Nigam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.NO.13506/2011 27.02.2013 Shri D.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Narayan Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. I.A.No.849/2013, an application for taking rejoinder on record is considered and allowed. The rejoinder is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that he is required to file a return indicating whether the petitioner was ever absorbed in the services of the State Government or not, and if she was not absorbed, would she be entitled to grant of pensionary benefits from the respondent No.2 in accordance to any Scheme made by the respondent No.2 in that respect. List the petition after 15 days enabling learned counsel for respondent No.2 to file a detailed return. It is made clear that in case no return is filed, the petition would be heard without the return. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj. 2 W.P.NO.13506/2011...
Chandra Bhan Pateriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2909/20127. 02.2013 Shri Praveen Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in ...
Pramod Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.2532/2013 27.02.2013 Petitioner in person. Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of enquiry report dated 09.08.2012. The petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry has been held against him in violation of principles of statutory rules as well as principles of natural justice. It is further submitted the documents which were sought by him were not supplied to him. Even the prayer for change of enquiry officer made to the Competent Authority, was not decided. The petitioner further submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit objection to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case such an objection is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions...
Chintu @ Mukesh Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.997/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents No.1 to 5. Shri Sandesh Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has filed a complaint case against the private respondents 6 onwards and as the complaint has been registered, they are trying to harass him and to seeking police protection, this writ petition has been filed. On notice being issued, respondents filed reply and by filing document Annexure R/3 pointed out that petitioner has a criminal history, more than 11 criminal cases were registered against him and it is indicated by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari that no police protection is required to be granted to the petitioner for the dispute in question. Petitioner by filing a rejoinder has tried to indicate that in almost all the criminal cases, petitioner has been acquitted, action be taken against the respondents. It is seen from the reco...
Alkesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.849/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Gavane, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 16.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.222/2012 registered at P.S.Saunsar, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The applicant is not the owner of the mobile, from which he alleged to have made call to the deceased. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application and submitted that during investigation it was found that the applicant was having illicit relationship with t...
Smt. Prabha Vs. Madan @ Madan Mohan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.C.C.No.612 / 2012 (Smt. Prabha ..Vs.Madan @ Madan Mohan &otheRs.27-02-2013 Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.5837/2012 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The application is duly supported by an affidavit and not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and, therefore, the same is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the application for restoration of S.A.No.2778/2005. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he had engaged Shri A.K.Mishra, learned counsel on his behalf in the appeal in place of earlier counsel, Shri K.N.Agrawal. He submits that due to non-mentioning of the name of newly engaged counsel in the cause list he could not appear before this Court when the case was called for hearing on 1-2-2012 which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The application is supp...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »