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.
Dhanesh Prasad Choubey Vs. Wakf Khankah Nijamia, Aga Chowk, Ranital Ja ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
C.R.No.103/2013 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava C.R.No.103/2013 APPLICANT SHRI DHANESH PRASAD CHOUBEY s/O LATE HARBANDH PRATAP CHOUBEY, R/o H.NO.376/38, KASTURBA WARD (PURANA GARHAPHATAK WARD H.No.90) AAGHA CHOWK KARBALA ROAD RANITAL JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR JABALPUR-M.P.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 {2...
Surat Alias Munna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1091/2013 26/02/2013 Shri R.S.Khare, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 23/10/12 in connection with Crime No.655/12 registered at P.S.Multai, District Betul for the offence punishable under section 302/201 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against this applicant. Deceased Ganto Bai was wife of this applicant and her dead body was found in the open place. During investigation, it is alleged against this applicant that he went with deceased Ganto Bai for harvesting the soyabin but he came to the house alone and stated that Ganto Bai went for harvesting the soyabin at Itarsi. This incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to convict the applicant. Charge sheet h...
Rana Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1093/2013 26/02/2013 Shri Brijesh Choubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.299/12, registered at police station Maihar, District Satna for the offence punishable under sections 177, 182, 205, 365 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that except the offence punishable u/s 365 of IPC, all other offences are bailable and triable by Magistrate. Applicant is a govt. servant and presently working as ASI, City Kotwali, Rewa. As per prosecution it is alleged against this applicant that he arrested Kammu Lodhi said to have been abducted with intent to his wrongfully confinement and still he is not found alive. It is submitted that Kammu has been arrested by th...
Mahesh Kumar Dixit and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1032/1999 Mahesh Kumar Dixit and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another .................................................................................................... Shri R. S. Patel, counsel for the applicants. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/ State. Shri R. S. Khare, counsel for respondent no.2. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 26th day of February, 2013) The applicants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 8.2.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.342 of 1996 and sentence of fine of Rs.300/- was imposed upon each of the applicant. In Criminal Appeal No.14 of 1999 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh vide judgment...
Mrituanjay Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Writ Petition No.2780/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Manot Patel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.2.2013, Annexure P1, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies, Tikamgarh, whereby he has directed the Returning Officer to go ahead with the process of election. The petition relates to holding of election of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Shivpuri, District Tikamgarh. Earlier, under instructions dated 11.1.2013 of respondent no.2 Commissioner, Co.operative Societies, Bhopal, election of second and third phase of Co.operative societies were stayed. Thereafter, by another memo dated 8.2.2013 direction has been issued to go ahead with the election as per annexed programme. The Deputy Registrar by the impugned order dated 11.2.2013 has merely communicated the directions to proceed with the co-operative elections as per annexed programme. The petitioner has not challenged the memo da...
Prabhat Samaj Seva Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Collector, Chhindwara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Writ Petition No.16361/2012 26.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The petitioner had undertaken certain construction work of respondent no.2 for which it submitted a bill of Rs.24,00,000/- but only a part payment was made. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4039/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.3.2012, Annexure P/23 of this High Court with a direction to respondent no.2 either make the payment or to pass a reasoned order why the payment is not being made. In compliance of the said order, respondent no.2 has passed a reasoned order dated 31.5.2012 justifying non-payment of the amount to the petitioner. It is in this background the petitioner has again rushed to this Court. From the perusal of order dated 31.5.2012, Annexure P26, it is apparent that respondent no.2 has disputed the claim of petitioner for payment of amount. The claim of petitioner for the amount, therefore, cannot be decided in a writ petition. ...
Pradeep Kumar Sodhi Vs. Western Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
-1- W.A.No.920/2012 26/2/2013 Shri Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel with Shri Dilip Parihar, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. 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 30.7.2012 passed in W.P.No.2604/2012 (Pradeep Kumar Sodhi Vs.Western Coalfields Limited & otheRs.passed by learned single Judge. The Writ Petition in turn was directed against an order dated 4.2.2012 whereby, the appellant employed as clerk in the Western Coal Fields limited was informed that he will retire w.e.f, 31.7.2012 on completion of 60 years taking his date of birth as 5.7.1952. Petitioner's case before the Writ Court was that having being engaged as General Majdoor in due couRs.his date of birth was recorded as 2.5.1958 in Form B which was maintained till 2.2.2012 when the same was unilaterally changed and vide letter dated 2.2.2012 he was ...
Yuvraj Deshmukh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 W.P No.1214/2013 Yuvraj Deshmukh & others State of M.P.& others 26.2.2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Roy, Counsel for respondent No.1/State. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.3. Shri J.K.Pillai, Counsel for respondent No.4. It is stated by the parties that controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2155/2013-Dvarka Baghele & others versus State of M.P.& others decided on 25.2.2013 and similar directions may be issued in the present case. As the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, in view of the joint submission of the parties, this petition is also disposed of finally. In W.P.No.2155/2013, this Court on 25.2.2013 passed an order which reads thus:- Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.3 is ready to declare the results of petitioners within a period of fifteen d...
Rambabu Rajak Vs. Shri Deepak Khandekar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Rambabu Rajak versus Shri Deepak Khandekar & Another Conc. No.1588 26. 2.2013: Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer for the non- applicants. The petitioner herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits of 5 th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the petitioner was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5 th Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner. not the grievance of the petitioner is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the petitioner by virtue of the acce...
Ajju @ Chotu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14024/2012 26.2.2013 Shri Naeem Khan, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 28.8.2012 in connection with Crime No.234/12 registered at Police Station Patan District Jabalpur for offence punishable under Sections 407, 379, 411, 120-B and 381 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation made against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »