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. Bharat Kumar Katkar Vs. the Health Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No.2635/2013 25.02.2013 Mr.Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks regularization from the date of initial appointment on the post of Medical Officer in the light of Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a represen...
Mohan Singh Gond Vs. Ram Bai Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No :2417. / 2013 Mohan Singh Gond versus Ram Bal Singh and others 25.02.2013. Shri Umesh Shrivastava for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the order passed by the trial court and the findings recorded in paragraph 8, it is seen that the trial court has recorded a finding that on the date of presentation of the suit, the possession of the plaintiff on the suit property is established and, therefore, injunction is granted. The said injunction is affirmed by the appellate court also. Even though Shri Shrivastava tried to emphasize that from the revenue records the possession of the plaintiff is not established, the fact remains that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts based on the actual possession on the date...
Subhash Chandra Tripathi Vs. Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Subhash Chandra Tripathi & Others Vs.Shri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Conc. No.335 25. 2.2013: Shri Mukesh Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri V.P.Tiwari, 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 accept...
Buddhu Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No :2501. / 2013 Buddhu Singh and another versus State of MP and others 25.02.2013. Shri Mahesh Shukla for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the State. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to correct the revenue records of land bearing KhaSr.Nos.232, 233, 234, 241, 242, 244 and 245, as indicated in the writ petition, situated in Village Nagwa, Tehsil and District Singrauli by mentioning the name of the petitioners in such record. In addition, appropriate direction to the respondents to comply with the order-dated 29.10.2012 Annexure P/6 is also made. Having heard learned counsel and on a perusal of the records, I have found that representation Annexure P/5 with respect to the dispute raised in this petition is still pending before respondent No.2 Collector, Singrauli. Hence, without express...
Dashrath Lal Bhartiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Criminal Revision No.2408/2012 25.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the applicants. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The bail application of the applicants was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mandla vide order dated 20.10.2012. In criminal appeal No.118/2012, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla vide judgment dated 22.11.2012 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred the present revision. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that both the Courts below have considered the gravity of offence, whereas the matter was to be considered as per the provisions of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. A report from Probation Officer is available, in which it was mentioned that there is n...
Shailendra Saxena Vs. Nilesh Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Shailendra Saxena versus Nilesh Dubey & Others Writ Petition No.2268 25. 2.2013: Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging an order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-I Hoshangabad, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the said suit an application filed by the petitioner for appointment of commission to conduct inspection and submit report is rejected merely on the ground that the dispute in question can be considered by recording of evidence and for the purpose of collecting evidence, at this stage, appointment of commission is not necessary. Rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC on the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interferenc...
Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt. Anshu Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.1069/2012 Criminal Revision No.1069/2012 25.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the applicants. Ms.Renu Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicants were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Budhar in criminal case No.206/2009. The respondent No.1 has preferred a criminal appeal No.59/2011 against the judgment. However, during the pendency of that appeal, it was prayed by the respondent No.1 that she wants to withdraw the appeal because a compromise took place between the parties and the respondent No.1 was residing with her husband. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide judgment dated 10.5.2012 in Criminal appeal No.59/2011, allowed the appeal and convicted the appl...
Parwat Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.713/1999 Parwat Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Imtiaz Husain, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2013) The applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Shri K.C. Bangar) Berasiya, District Bhopal in criminal case no.530/88 and sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of `2,000/-. In criminal appeal no.55/99, the learned 9 th Additional Sessions Judg...
Jagdeesh Prasad Katiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2822/2013 25.2.2013 Shri A.K.Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 filed by w...
Smt. Chandrakanta Bedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2876/2013 25.2.2013 Shri V.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular d...