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.
Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2940/2013 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....
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
CRR No.1947/2011 Criminal Revision No.1947/2011 27.2.2013 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/applicant. Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for the respondents. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is hearing finally. The State has preferred the present revision against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, whereby the respondents were discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, a photocopy of forged mark-sheet of class 12th was provided by the respondent No.1 Raju Patel before the appointing authority. Also, that forgery was done by the respondent No.1 Rajulal and respondent No.2 Ramhet verified the photocopy of that forged document. A case was registered on the report given by Chief Executive Officer and Programming Officer, Janpad Panchayat Shahnagar, District Panna. After considering the submissions made by th...
P.L.Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1258/2013(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...
Manoj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1105/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Learned Sr.Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.1.2013 and the applicant did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the application. Since applicant has already been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that he misused the liberty granted to him, the order dated 29.1.2013 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, 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...
Damodar Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2919/20127. 02.2013 Shri Munendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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 mention...
Dayaram Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.3013/2013 27.02.2013 Mr.Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 19.02.2013, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that against the aforesaid order of suspension, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the Appellate Authority. In view of aforesaid statement, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the Appellate Authority. In case, the petitioner files an appeal along with the application for stay, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to sta...
Samir Banerji Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
---1--- W.A.No.1508/2012 27.2.2013 Shri Brain Da' Silva, learned Senior Counsel with Shri H.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.N.Singh learned Senior Counsel and Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents. By consent heard finally. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents state that the inquiry will be concluded within a period of two months and the appeal, if preferred, will be decided within a period of two months after receipt. The statement made by both the learned Senior Counsel is accepted. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of in above terMs.C.C., as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (Sanjay Yadav) Chief Justice Judge AK...
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
---1--- W.A.No.10/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Brain Da' Silva, learned Senior Counsel with Shri H.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.N.Singh learned Senior Counsel and Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents. By consent heard finally. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents state that the inquiry will be concluded within a period of two months and the appeal, if preferred, will be decided within a period of two months after receipt. The statement made by both the learned Senior Counsel is accepted. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of in above terMs.C.C., as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (Sanjay Yadav) Chief Justice Judge AK...
Mehfooz Ahmed Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.7296/20127. 02.2013 Shri Greeshm Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. A return has been filed by the respondent No.4 categorically contending that the matter relating to grant of benefit of time scale pay on the next stage is under active consideration of respondent No.4 and after formation of the Committee for screening of cases of eligible persons, appropriate action would be taken within a period of one month from today. It is stated in the return that since such policy decision has already been taken, the relief claimed in the writ petition would be granted to the petitioners after consideration of their claim. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned senior Counsel for respondent No.4, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look int...
Smt.Urmila Bayi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Smt. Urmila Bai versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.13165 27. 2.2013: Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of petitioner is that inspite of order passed by Tehsildar as contained in Annexure P-1 declaring right of petitioner to the property in question based on the will executed by the original owner respondent No.4 Company is not disbursing compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of land, accordingly seeking payment of compensation, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that making complaint with regard to non- payment of compensation petitioner has already represented respondent No.2, the Collector concerned and that being so, for the present, without entering into merits of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to take note of claim of petitioner with regard to payment of compensation for acquisition of land in question and after notice to respondent No.4 decide the claim of petitioner either himself or by reference to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »