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.
Ganesh Bokade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.2077/2011 Ganesh Bokade Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A.R.S. Chauhan, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC and sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of `500/- and `500/- respectively vide judgment dated 17.8.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Shri A.K. Dandeliya) Saunsar, District Chhindwara in criminal case no.411/08. Thereafter, a criminal appeal no.286/11...
Ramashankar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.1626/20125. 02.2013 None for the petitioneRs.Perused the record. The controveRs.involved in the present petition is with respect to grant of benefit of Fundamental Rule 22- D in case of grant of promotion on regular basis. This Court in the case of R.S.Sikarwar versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(3) M.P.L.J.397, has taken note of the law laid-down by the order passed by the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Smt. Kunti Saxena versus State of M.P.(O.A.No.224/1992).and has reached to the conclusion that even if regular promotion is granted on the post carrying the same pay scale, which was granted by virtue of release of Kramonnati, still the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D would be available to such an employee. In view of the law laid-down by this Court in the case of R.S.Sikarwar (supra).the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioneRs.make proper fixation of their salary and pay them all the arrears of salary within a period of two m...
Amit Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C. No.727/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Atula Anand Awasthy, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. 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.373/2012 registered at Police Station, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. As per prosecution, allegation against the present applicant is that he was a middle man through whom four ladies impersonated themselves on the name of other ladies and took Rs. 50,00,000/ from the complainant in fact they were not property holders. On the basis of aforesaid fact, applicant is not the beneficiary because he had not taken any money ...
Yamuna Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.19033/2012 25.2.2013 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Though a response is filed by the respondents and it is contended that the ratio of law laid down by this Court duly approved by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others W.A.No.346/2008 (decided on 18-12-2008) would not be applicable in the case of petitioner since he was appointed on a fixed salary prior to coming into force of instructions issued by the State Government as the instructions of the state government cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was also appointed in the like manner in a school as Up Shikshak and therefore, the law laid down by the M.P.Administrative Tribunal duly approved by the Apex Court in the case of Madhukant Yadu versus State of Madhya Pradesh, in O.A.No.2745/1989, decided on 24.08.1992 which has been made ap...
Mohd. Riyaz Vs. the Western Coalfields Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.21681/20125. 02.2013 Shri Bhoop Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This is third round of litigation in respect of claiming correction in the date of birth. The petitioner has based his claim on a certificate of transfer issued by the school concerned where the petitioner was studying, categorically stating that in the said certificate the date of birth recorded is 24.01.1955 whereas on the basis of medical examination since it has been said that the petitioner is about 60 years of age, he is sought to be retired on the basis of wrong date of birth recorded in the service record. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier two occasions when this Court has directed conducting of enquiry by the respondents in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. On second occasion, after conducting the enquiry, the respondents have passed the order and have categorically stated that the petitioner had not produced the school edu...
Kallu Kacchi Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 W.P.No.2704/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a consumer of electricity and has filed this writ petition contending that he has filed a complaint and lodged an FIR against respondent No.3 a Junior Engineer but as no action is being taken on the FIR writ petition has been filed for lodging an FIR against respondent No.3 a Junior Engineer and taking action against him. From the material available on record it is seen that in a surprise inspection and raid conducted in the premises of the petitioner illegal activities with regard to theft of electricity duty has been found and a case has been registered. It seems to be a defence of the petitioner that respondent No.3 a Junior Engineer has taken a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the petitioner by way of deposit in cash and not contending that the Junior Engineer and Clerk in the office has committed misappropriation and fraud on the petitioner, a complaint has been filed and contending that...
Pankaj Pandya Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.12415/20125. 02.2013 Shri Vikram Johri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. The only controveRs.involved in the writ petition is with respect to payment of certain claim made by the petitioner through the respondent No.1 towards the Group Insurance Scheme. It is contended that on account of death of father of the petitioner, the claim was prepared and sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 but the same has not yet been paid. It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that such a claim forwarded by respondent No.1 has not yet been received by respondent No.2 and, therefore, no process could be initiated in that respect. However, it is not in dispute that in case such a claim is sent by respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 is required to process the same expeditiously. ...
Hridaylal Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Review Petition No :102. / 2013 Hridaylal Pandey versus State of MP and others 25.02.2013. Shri G.P.Dubey for the applicant. This application has been filed for recall of order-dated 23.7.2012, passed in Writ Petition No.10052/2012, on the ground that proper authorities have not been impleaded and as the order is passed against improper persons, the same is not correct. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the order passed on 23.7.2012, in Writ Petition No.10052/2012 is recalled. The said petition is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the Appropriate Bench as per Roster. The application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Gabbu @ Dinesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.9/2013 Gabbu @ Dinesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A.K. Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 14(a) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide judgment dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Mandla in criminal case no.1460/09, whereby he was sentenced for one years R.I. with fine of `200/-. In criminal appeal no.100/11, vide judgment d...
Tilak Raj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Review Petition No :101. / 2013 Tilak Raj Singh versus State of MP and others 25.02.2013. Shri G.P.Dubey for the applicant. This application has been filed for recall of order-dated 23.7.2012, passed in Writ Petition No.10055/2012, on the ground that proper authorities have not been impleaded and as the order is passed against improper persons, the same is not correct. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the order passed on 23.7.2012, in Writ Petition No.10055/2012 is recalled. The said petition is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the Appropriate Bench as per Roster. The application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...