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. Arvind Singh Tekam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12980/2012 26.2.2013 Shri R.K.Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandra Kant Mishra, GA for the State. Heard. This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.FiRs.application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5491/2012 and second application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2385/2012. The applicant is in custody since 16.12.2011 in connection with Crime No.111/2011 registered at Police Station Garha District Jabalpur for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 327, 384, 408, 409, 120_B, 468, 471, 469, 420, 201, 193 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (ix) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is student. He has already completed his MBBS CouRs.and not he is appearing in the examination of Post Graduate Course, therefore there is no possibility o...
Mathura Prasad Kumare Vs. Ashish Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Mathura Prasad Kumare versus Shri Ashish Upadhyay & Others Conc. No.1413 26. 2.2013: Shri Sachin Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned counsel non-applicants. Keeping in view the orders passed by non-applicants as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 1.9.2012, no further action is required to be taken. However, if actual monetary benefit accruing to applicant by virtue of said order has not been granted, same be granted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, for the present, finding no case for interference, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/...
Ramnath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2523/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Raman Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.28/2013 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines District Chhatarpur for offence punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Learned counsel further submitted applicant is retired clerk. It is alleged against him that instead of Rs.22,000/ he only deposited only Rs. 2,000/ in the account of Income Tax Department. He is ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/ under protest. The applicant is a reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation wou...
Harshvardhan Verma Vs. Shri Raghuraj Rajendran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Con.C.No.1060/11 26/02/13 Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Hitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondent and the explanation given with regard to non-regularization of the petitioner so also the reasons given with regard to grant of benefit to Shri Naseem Khan, Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen, Shri Krishnakant Dixit and Shri Omprakash Mishra, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate any action for contempt. In case, petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which his case has been dealt with, he may claim the benefit in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioneRs.finding no case made out for proceeding further in the matter, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Govind Das Saraf Vs. Shri Deepak Khandekar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Govind Das Saraf versus Shri Deepak Khandekar & Another Conc. No.1025 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 a...
Vinod Kumar Rai Vs. Dr.Hakeem Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.3113/2006 M.Cr.C No.3113/2006 26/2/2013: Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for respondent. Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending as case of 652/2005 in the Court of JMFC, Waidhan District Sidhi, under Section 500 of IPC on the basis of complaint of respondent. On 3.8.2004 respondent, who happened to be Principal of Government College, Waidhan preferred a complaint under Section 500 of IPC against the petitioner, Sport Officer working in same College. According to the complaint Respondent worked as Principal in Government College from 16.12.1996 to 7.7.2001 and from 7.7.2001 to 4.7.2003 in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial, College, Sidhi and thereafter in Governmental Girls College, Sidhi. Petitioner joined the College as Sport Officer on 30.11.2002 and was working under the administrative Control of the Principal. 2 M.Cr.C.No.3113/2006 It is alleged that the p...
Rajendra Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Writ Petition No.807/2008 26.2.2013 Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for respondent no.6. In the present petition, the petitioner has essentially prayed that the election of respondent no.7 as President of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Shahdol, be declared as void because the same was held after order of stay dated 15.1.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.596/2008. Pursuant to order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the elections of respondent no.4 Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Shahdol, were scheduled for 15.1.2008. Aggrieved with the process of election, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.596/2008. A single Judge Bench of this High Court vide order dated 15.1.2008 after hearing the counsel for petitioner and the Deputy Advocate General on advance notice stayed the operation of order dated 7.1.2008 with a ...
R.K. Chandrawanshi Vs. Shri Deepak Khandekar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
R.K.Chandrawanshi versus Shri Deepak Khandekar & Another Conc. No.1587 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 ...
Kumari Rasheeda Saifi Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Kumari Rasheed Saifi versus Manot Jhalani & Another Conc. No.1330 26. 2.2013: Shri Vishal Dhagat, 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 acceptanc...
Bhartiya Parivahan Karmachari Mahasangh Bhopal Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
W.P.No.8358/2011 26.02.2013 Ms.Neelima Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1,2 and 3. Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.4,5 and 6. In terms of order dated 24.01.2013, it is stated by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government has made deposit of certain amounts and is trying to make available fund to the respondents No.4 to 6 for payment of salary to the members of the petitioner-Samiti. It is further stated that in fact in the erstwhile State Road Transport Corporation, the Central Government was also having a share of 29.5% and, therefore, to that extent the Central Government is also required to make the fund available to the State Government for the purposes of payment of salary to the employees of the erstwhile Corporation. It is contended that since the Union of India is not made a party in the present petition, it will not be poss...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »