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.
Balwan Singh Gour Vs. Ashok Badwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 Conc. No.1409/2011 26.2.2013 Shri Deepak Okhde, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 13.12.2010 in W.P.No.17806/2010 has not been complied with, this application for initiating action for contempt has been filed. Petitioners claim to be working in the Education Department and have retired. It was their case that second krammonati has not been granted to them and petitions were filed after their retirement. When the petition came up for hearing on 13.12.2010 the matter was disposed of in the light of law laid down in the case of Smt. Prerna Koranne versus State of M.P.& Others in W.P.No.6773/2006 decided on 26.4.2007. not from the reply filed by the respondents and the order produced by them it is seen that the Directorate of Public Instructions, Bhopal on 21.2.2013 has directed for granting second krammonati to each of the applicants w.e.f.1.11.2000 i.e.the...
Abdul Kaleem Vs. Abdul Jabbar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.1013/2012 ABDUL KALEEM VS. ABDUL JABBAR & OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Avinash Zargar, for the petitioner. Shri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Arpan J.Pawar for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for respondent No.3. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 26-2-2013 ) Challenging an order dated 27.9.2011 and 18.3.2011 passed by the Collector, Chhindwara in the matter of permitting revision of an order passed by the Tahsildar regarding partition of the area in question, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner Shri Abdul Kaleem and respondent No.1 Abdul Jabbar are the real brothers. It is said that respondent No.2 Abdul Khaliq is cousin of petitioner. The property in question is situated in Tahsil Sausar, District Chhindwara. It was originally the property of one Abdul Khurshi...
Shivam Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Maryadit Vs. the State of Mad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Appeal No.397/2010 Shivam Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar. Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A.Bobde, Chief Justice. Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay K. Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Per : K.K.Trivedi, J. ORDER (26.2.2013) This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5036/2010, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the allotment of fair price shop to respondent No.4 has been dismissed. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not looked into the claim of the appellant as in terms of the Scheme made by the State government for Food and Civil Supply, the respondent No.4 could not have been appointed as a retail deale...
Prahlad Vs. the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 W.P.No.174/2013, W.P.No.175/2013, W.P.No.180/2013 & W.P.231/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-State on advance notice. Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.174/2013. As the question involved in all these four cases are similar, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order. Challenging the order Annexure P/4 dated 25.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khandwa, dismissing the reference made to it by the competent authority under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, these writ petitions have been filed. It is stated by Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners that the reference has been rejected only on the ground that witnesses of the petitioner was not present. It is submitted by him that without adverting to consider the question on merits, dismissal of the appe...
Sharad Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.879/1999 Sharad Kumar Chourasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri R.K. Thakur, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 26th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced for one year's R.I. with fine of `500/- vide judgment dated 15.10.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna in criminal case no.777/98. The learned Sessions Judge, Satna vide judgment dated 22.5.1999 reduced to the period from a per...
Mohd. Imran Alias Ibran Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1096/2013 26.2.2013 Shri R.S.Khare, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, PL 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 20.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.745/2012 registered at P.S.Multai, District Betul for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of the IPC and 66G of the Cyber Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is ready to deposit Rs.50,000/- under protest with the condition that if he is acquitted by the trial Court the aforesaid amount will be returned to him and in case he is convicted by the trial Court, the aforesaid amount will be forfeited. 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. On due consideration of the conte...
Ateek Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1094/2013 26/02/2013 Shri Shailendra Singh, 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 17/11/12 in connection with Crime No.309/12 registered at P.S.Bhalumadha, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself it is alleged against this applicant that he assaulted the complainant Mohd. Shahzad by danda (a wooden stick).Injured is already discharged from the hospital. Charge sheet has been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the na...
Annu @ Sani Sonkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2499/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Mahesh Acharya, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicants are in custody since 4.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.49/2013 registered at P.S.Bargi, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged that 144 bulk liters illicit liquor is said to have been seized from the possession of the four accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants. 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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for ...
Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 W.P.No.2652/2013. 26.02.2013 Shri B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice. Shri Ishant Mehta, learned counsel appeared and accepts notice on behalf of respondents, therefore, no process is required to be paid. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of his criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted by the Court on 16.5.2003. Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, in between he retired from service. However, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever impugned notice has been issued on 27.12.2012 directing recovery of amount of Rs.44,519/- from the pension of the petitioner and the petitioner is called upon to deposit the said amount or else the recovery would be made from the pension of the petitioner. From the record, it is not clear whether any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner even when the prosecution was pending. Onl...
Shivcharitra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.343/20126. 02.2013 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) by which a recovery of Rs.2,10,301/- is directed against him on account of over payment of salary for the extended period of service. It is contended that out of the said amount, Rs.1,03,652/- is adjusted from the provisional pension of the petitioner and Rs.47,684/- has been adjusted from the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner. Rest of the amount is required to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was given a notice of retirement on 16.01.2009 indicating that on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner would retire on 30th June, 2009. It is further contended that it was not known to the petitioner whether his age of supera...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »