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.
Prakash Chandra Chaturmohata Vs. M.P.Financial Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.C.C.Petition No :925. / 2012 Prakash Chandra Chaturmohata versus MP Financial Corporation and ors 25.02.2013. Shri H.K.Verma for the applicant. Shri Vijay Shukla for the non-applicants. This application has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No.4541/2002, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.6.2012. Restoration is sought for on the ground that counsel, Shri H.K.Verma, was not well and medical certificates in this regard have been filed alongwith affidavit of the counsel. Finding the same to be bonafide, this application is allowed. Writ Petition No.4541/2002 is restored to its file. It be placed for orders before the Appropriate Bench, as per Roster. Accordingly, the application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Udde Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2735/2013 25.02.2013 Shri Ajit Narayan, Petitioner in person. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of P.F.within 7 days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by the petitioner that the recommendations made by the UGC have been duly accepted by the Central Government and a circular has been issued prescribing the age of superannuation of the Registrar and other employees of the Institution. In complete violation of the notification issued by the Central Government, by the impugned letter, it is communicated that the age of superannuation of the persons like petitioner would be 60 yeaRs.It is contended that this circular is coming in way of the petitioner in performing the duties. Looking to the aforesaid and keeping in view the memorandum issued by respondent No.1, the operation of circular dated 14.11.2012 (Annexure P-3).is hereby stayed till the next date of c...
Kamalkant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.698/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 23.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.282/2012 registered at Police Station Tirodi, District Balaghat for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The injured has already been discharged from the hospital. 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, 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. The application is allowed....
Kishanlal Namdeo Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Contempt Case No.2011/2011 25.02.2013 Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri D. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 that he is required to file response to indicate as to why interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10926/2011 on 20.07.2011 is not being implemented. Two weeks time is allowed for the said purposes. It is intimated by the office that the respondents No.1,2 and 3 have been duly served with the notices of the contempt petition, but no response have been filed by them. Issue bailable warrant of Rs.500/- each against those officers to remain present before this Court on 14th March, 2013. List on 14th March, 2013. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Paras Ram Lakhera Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2523/20125. 02.2013 Shri C.K.Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal f...
Rajiv Chadha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 W.P.No.2126/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for the respondents. On instructions received from the respondents, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari points out that in pursuance to certain directions issued by the Regional office of the M.P.State Pollution Control Board, Jabalpur mining activities are directed to be stayed w.e.f.3.3.2012. Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, refutes the aforesaid and points out that as per Annexure P/4 activities were continued by the petitioner upto 1.7.2012 and therefore he should be permitted to remove the material extracted from 1.7.2012 from the site where they are available. There is dispute with regard to extraction of mineral between 3.3.2012 to 1.7.2012. However, competent authority shall conduct enquiry into the matter and such of the mineral which has been extracted and for which proper royalty has been paid the same shall be permitted to be removed and for the said purpose, ...
Vikat Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WA No.133/13 25.02.13. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for appellant. Heard. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy AG. Ad-interim writ Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is recovery of Rs.35,461/- against the appellant which may be stayed, and the respondents may be directed to release the pension of the petitioner. On making such contention, it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned Deputy AG that after retaining Rs.35,461/-, the State has no objection in releasing remaining amount of the retrial dues of the appellant. So far as fixation of the pension is concerned, it can be re-fixed after fixation of the salary of appellant correctly. To this, appellant has no objection. In view of aforesaid, we direct thus :- (i) The respondents may release the retrial dues of the appellant after retaining Rs.35,461/- from the total dues of the appellant; 2 (ii) So far as the pension is concerned, it b...
Guddi Vs. Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.C.C.No.91/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.1432/2013, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit and which is not controverted, the delay in filing the M.C.C.is condoned. Accordingly, the I.A . is allowed. Heard on admission. For the reasons recorded in the application for restoration of W.P.No.8441/2005, the same is allowed. Let the writ petition be restored in its original number and be listed before the appropriate bench for hearing. M.C.C.stands disposed of. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
Tarun Bharat Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2394/2013 25.2.2013 Ms.Nilima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that I.A.No.2817/2013 has been filed for correcting the relief clause to remove the default pointed out by the Registry. Considering the aforesaid, I.A.No.2817/2013 is allowed. Let the correction be carried out during couRs.of the day. Other defaults pointed out by the Registry as is declared by the counsel for the petitioner have been removed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim made by the present petition is duly covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma versus State of Madhya Pradesh (O.A.No.979/1994).Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the anvil of the order passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. Let a rep...
Badri Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.1690/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1690/2002 APPELLANTS:1. Badri Yadav, S/o Shri Tanta Yadav, aged 45 years, 2. Kishori @ Ram Kishore S/o Shri Badri Yadav, aged 25 years, 3. Boua @ Sugreev S/o Shri Badri Yadav, aged 22 years, All residents of Bicchiya Badwara, Police Station, Badwara, District Katni. Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Badwara District Katni. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Date of hearing :19. 02/2013 Date of judgment:25. 02/2013 Per: Rakesh Saksena;J.(JUDGMENT ) Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.2002 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Katni in Sessions Trial No.153/2002, ...